Skip to main content

Full text of "History Of The Greek Rite Catholics By John Slivka"

See other formats


w 



THE HISTORY 

OF THE 

GREEK RITE CATHOLICS 

IN 

PANNONIA, HUNGARY, 
CZECHOSLOVAKIA 

AND 

PODKARPATSKA RUS' 
863-1949 

by JOHN SLIVKA 
1974 



~VJ' 



- 






• ' 












• 






-■ 






FOREWORD 



A thought influenced me years 
ago to write the history of UHRO- 
RUSINS, Podkarpatsky Rusiny, for 
our young generation. Where did 
their RUSIN ancestors live, what 
was their religion, character, and 
fate under the Hungarian Govern- 
ment for 1000 years. 

We are aware that the UHRO- 
RUSINS are a small group of people^ 
some 800,000 souls. Let us not 
forget that regardless of their 
numerical strength, the good Lord 
still found a place on earth for 
them, too. 

To write a history, it is 
necessary to have historical 
material, documents, and sources. 
Out of this small group of people, 
there were some sons who cared for 
them, who wanted the future gener- 
ation to know the past of their 
RUSIN ancestors in Hungary. 
Historians such as Joanicus Bazil- 
ovits, Andrew Balugyanszky , John 
Duliskovics, Anthony Hodinka, 
Kalman Zsatkovics, J. Sztripszky, 
etc. These good men deemed it 
necessary to write the history 
about the small group of UHRO- 
RUSINS- -Rusins- -who lived in 
Hungary . 



These RUSINS were separated from 
their Rusin brothers in the north 
by the Carpathian Mountains, a 
barrier which brought about a 
different character, customs, and 
language dialect. These differ- 
ences distinguish them from the 
Rusins of Galicia, Austria, and the 
KievianRus. 

People who do not know their 
past will not live in the present, 
nor in the future. Let us all 
learn from history: the teacher 
of the past. 

RUSINS, wake up from your deep 
slumber, and learn with others 
about your ancestral past in order 
to know who you are. Do not 
assimilate, to be outcasts among 
other nationals. Walk in the foot- 
steps of your Rusin forefathers, 
who although governed by the 
Hungarians for a thousand years, 
still kept their language alive 
through their GREEK CATHOLIC RITE 
and the Old Slovanic language. 



CONTENTS 



The Rusins in Pannonia 1 

The Rusins of Hungary and Their 
Character 21 

The Origin of the National Name 
Rus, Rus, Syn, RUSIN 28 

The Ancient Home of the Rusins... 29 

The UhroRusins' Political Views.. 30 

The Rusin Eparchy and the 
Immigration of Hungarians and the 
Days that Followed 32 

The Break of the Eastern and 
Western Church. Its effect upon 
the Races in Hungary. Especially 
the Fate of the Rusins 36 

The Religious Misunderstanding and 
the fate of the Rusins .,...4 2 

The Conditions of the Rusins in 
Hungary during the Reign of King 
Endre I 1049-1060 to King St. 
Laszlo 1077-1095 43 

The Fate of the Rusins during 
1077-1141 45 

The Oppression of the Greek Rite 
Peoples' Church in Hungary from 
1131-1235 47 



The Unfortunate Fate of the Greek 
Rite in Hungary, Poland, and 
Galicia 1205-1342 49 

The Fate of the Rusins and the 
Rebellion in Ung and Zeraplen 
Counties. The Common Fate of the 
Rusins and the Rumanians 5 3 

The Last Rusin Immigrant During the 
Reign of King Nagy Lajos. 
Koriatovics Fedor and the Greek 
Rite Churches Development 5 7 

The Rusins* Religious Development 
from King Nagy Lajos to King Matyas 
1458-1490 .63 

The Conditions of the Rusins after 
the Death of King Matyas. 1479- 
1650 65 

The Greek Rite Church in Hungary 
and the Union with Rome 71 

The Union Document of Ungvar 1646- 
1655 73 

Breve of Pope Alexander VII, June 
8, 1655 87 

The Historical Division of the 
Munkacs Eparchy. The First Period 
1491-164 8 ..88 

The Second Period in the History of 
the Munkacs Eparchy 1648 -1772 .... 91 



Queen Maria Terezia, the Great 
Benefactor and Protector of the 
Greek Rite Catholic Rusins and 
Magyars 101 

Three Letters 103 

The Consequences of the Union with 
Rome in Hungary and Poland 114 

Third Period from 1772-1922 .... 122 

The Short History of the Munkacs 
Episcopal Library 130 

The History of the Authenticity of 
the Miraculously Weeping Theotokos 
Icon of Mariapocs. 1696 134 

What Happened in Pocs and How?. 135 

The Klokocso Church. The Icon. 136 

The Eparchy of Eperj es-Presov. . 140 

Wilson's Fourteen Points Enunciated 
January 8, 1918 160 

How the Territory of Rusins of 
Former Hungary was Dismembered 
1919-1921. 163 

Minority Grievances in Russinsko 
168 

The Violation of Autonomy Rights 
169 

Violation of the Rights of Self- 
Determination 170 



Historical Facts about the Rusins 
of Podkarpatska Rus after the 
First World War 1914-1919 171 

Central Rusin National Council in 
Uzhorod 190 

To All Officials of Zemplen County 
19 7 

Memorandum 201 

Territorial Grievances. . . 206 

The Autonomy Question 211 

Governing Council 215 

The Questions of Officials 227 

Economic Grievances 230 

Conclusions 233 



THE MOCKING GREEK CATHOLIC SYNOD... 
237 

THE PROBLEMS OF THE GREEK CATHOLICS 
240 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 241 

NAME INDEX 244 



RUSINS (1) OF PANNONIA 

History records the movements of vast 
number of people from East to West and from 
West to East in the heartland of Europe. One of 
the most interesting of these movements was the 
migration of thousands of Celts in the Third and 
Fourth Centuries before Christ. By the Second 
century, evidences are that they had taken up 
residence to the South of the Carpathian 
Mountains in Eastern Europe. Excavation made 
in the Eighteenth century at Hathegy and at 
Ardanhaza, Hungary, show clearly that they 
fought in these areas and that they settled down 
in this territory. (2) 

The Rusins (3) in the Third and Fourth cen- 
tury before Christ, also came to this territory 
and settled down. The Bulgarians and the 
Rumanians lived in the Tisza river territory, 
including the districts of present day Munkacs, 
(Mukacevo), Beregszasz, (Berehovo), and 
Hathegy. The pastures and the fields of the 
Rusins stretched from Munkacs- Mukacevo to 
the Beszkid mountains. 

The first Apostolic attempt to bring 
Christianity to these people can be traced to their 
neighbors to the West, the various tribes of 
Germanic stock and language. We find that in 
the early part of the Ninth century, Urolch (880) 
a German bishop of Laureak first preached to 
the Slovanic people the Gospel of Christ, These 

1. UHRO-RUSINS OF HUNGAKY. In 1919 they were 
named PODKARPATSKI RUSINS, in the Republic 
of Czechoslovakia, after the occupation by the 
Soviet Union Communistic Regime in 1944, it be- 
gan to be named Oblast Zakarpatskoj Ukraini. 

2. LECHOCKY TIVADAR. "A Bereg megyei Go'rog 
Szertartasu Katholikus Lelkeszek Tfirtenete a XIX- 
ik Szazad Vegeig. Munkacs 1904. 

3. KUPCANKO HRIHORIJ. "Nasa Rodina" 1924. p. 2. 
At that time they were named HORBATY - HOR- 
VATY. (Horb - mountain, mountaineers.) 

1 



were the Moravians- and the Czechs, under their 
King Mojmir. As an example for his people, the 
king was publicly baptized a Christian. This 
would seem to be an admirable thing, and the 
beginning of the conversion of all these peoples. 
The difficulty lay, however, in the inability of 
these missionaries to speak the language of the 
people. With little or no knowledge of the Ger- 
manic dialect, the Slovanic people were unable 
to comprehend the doctrines of Christianity. (4) 

Ratislav (863) the chieftain of the Moravians 
beard that in Bulgaria and in the neighboring 
country, priests from the Imperial Court had 
preached to the people in their own Slovanic 
tongue. He set out for Constantinople and there 
inquired if it might not be possible to have such 
missionaries sent to his people. Speaking their 
language, he felt they couia Hie more easily 
explain the doctrines and convert the Slovanic 
people to the religion of Christ. (5) 

About the year 863, the Holy Apostles Cyril 
(869) and Methodius (885) came to Moravia, 
where they had already been engaged in 
preaching. Speaking the language of the people, 
they began their work of teaching the truths of 
salvation. They spread the good tidings through 
the whole region, preaching in Pannonia, in 
Czechia, in Moravia, in Styria, in Carithia and 
Dalmatia. These Apostles brought Christianity 
to the Rusins during the time they preached in 
Pannonia. (6) Besides preaching, Cyril and 



4. BALUGYANSZKY ANDRAS. "Egyhazi Tor- 
tenetirat". Eperjes 1846. p. 275 

5. BALUGYANSZKY ANDRAS. op. Cit. p. 275 

6. BALUGYANSZKY ANDRAS, op. cit. pp. 275-284. 
Note: In the English language the SLOVANIC 
people are named SLAVONIC, SLAVIC, SLAVS, 
and the SLOVANIC people name themselves 
SLOVJANE, slovo, slova, SLOVJANE, in English it 
is to be written: SLOVANIC, and not SLAVONIC, 
SLAV... 



Saints Cyril and Methodius 




Methodius also devised an alphabet for the 
Slovanic people. They translated the Divine 
Services into the Slovanic and gave them to the 
people. Through these translations and these 
books of Divine Worship they made religion of 
Christ more understandable to all the Slovanic 
people of this region. 

From these facts it may easily be adduced 
that all the people of Pannonia. (7) received 
Christianity from Cyril and Methodius, and in 
accordance with the Greek Rite. Some historians 
speak of a Bishop See of the Rusins. (8) This is 
most probably true. Rites at that time were a 
little more fluid than they have since become. 
Politics, the desire to advance economically 
and other forces in history have served to serve 
these ancient ties of loyalty. 

That the Latin Rite neighbors, conquerors and 
invaders often used economic and political 
pressure to win these Greek Rite people to the 
adoption of the Latin Rite, can hardly be doubted 
or denied. We have striking evidence of this 
pressure in the number of Greek Rite Catholic 
(Rusin) whole villages in Szepes, Saras, Abauj, 
Zemplen, Ung, Bereg, Ugocsa and Szabolcs 
Counties, who preferred the Reformation of the 
doctrine of Martin Luther and John Calvin to the 
forced adoption of Latin Rite. (9) 

Historically we may credit Gizella, the 
Bavarian wife of King St. Stephen, for a great 
deal of this admiration and acceptance of Roman 
Usage. She was a great influence in bringing the 
Latin Rite into esteem in Pannonia (Hungary). 
The whole territory and the divergent rites 

7. PANNONIA: The territory West of the Danube - 
river and the Northern part of the Tfeza river in 
Hungary. 

8. BALUGYANSZKY ANDRAS. Op. cit. p. 303. The 
converted people had their Shepherd their Bishop. 

9. BESKID A. NIKOLAJ Dr. "Karpato-Russkaja 
Pravda". Homestead, Pa., 1933. p. 253. 



Dun a 







THE FIRST GREEK RITE CATH 
EPISCOPAL SEES IN HUNGARY 
PANNONIA 890 -900 A.D. 



GREEK RITE CATHOLIC EPISCOPAL 
SEES IN 900 A.D...,. 




engendered discussion, rivalry, often bitter 
hatred. Christian understanding, forebearance 
and charity were often forgotten and 
acrimonious contention took their place. Had the 
leaders possessed more Christian charity. 
Catholicism might have benefited. We can not 
and must not blame the Church for the failings of 
individuals. These disputes in historical 
perspective serve but to point the need of an 
understanding charity today. 

Pannonia was the homeland of the Rusins 
before the Hungarians arrived on the scene. In 
turn Pannonia became Magyarorszag 
(Hungary), which was encircled by the Car- 
pathian mountains. As brothers the Rusins and 
their Hungarian fellow inhabitants of the area 
march along the pages of history. In the more 
than thousand years they have dwelt together, 
their history blends into a common story, as 
their religious preference for the Greek Rite 
marks them further as brothers in Christ and in 
ritual observance. 

The cultural and religious contributions of a 
small group of immigrants to the United States 
of America is "more than of ordinary importance. 
This group is a comparatively small number of 
natives from Hungary, who are Catholics of the 
Greek Rite. They are frequently lost in the story 
of the larger group of Hungarians of the Latin 
Rite. Their identity, however, is still sedulously 
preserved ; their customs and traditions continue 
to honor those of their fathers and mothers. Over 
the years their contribution to religion and their 
Greek Rite is stupendous in proportion to their 
numbers. Inadequate and incomplete as this 
sketch may be, it is an attempt at least to 
signalize and record some of these 
achievements. 

We may say that the history of the Rusins and 
Hungarians began in the tenth century, when, in 
about 890 A.D. the Hungarians settled in Pan- 



noma around and about the Ung River, (10) 
where they joined the Christian Rusins already 
dwelling there, (ll) One of their leaders Almos 
came to this territory through Galicia. His 
followers soon spread out to occupy almost all of 
the Danubian basin. Another great Hungarian 
leader Arpad, brought a large group of people 
through Transylvania and likewise settled in 
Pannonia where we know St. Cyril and 
Methodius, Apostles to the Slovanic people, were 
already working. We can easily posit a number 
of Greek Rite Eparchies, Episcopal Sees in this 
territory, because in 879 A.D., Pope John Vni 
made Methodius a Metropolitan. (12) Piligrin, 
the Latin Rite Bishop of Patava, in 980 A.D., 
writing to Pope Benedict VII mentions the 
existence of SEVEN Episcopal Sees of the Greek 
Rite in the Pannonia territory prior to the in- 
vasion by the Hungarians. 

Some historians maintain that the Rusins had 
their own Bishop of the Greek Rite in the 
territory of Munkacs. It is difficult to obtain 
certain knowledge about this, because of the 
disturbed conditions of the period as well as the 
frequent changes of the names of places. The 
invasions with the consequent upheavals brought 
out destruction, waste and pillage. This can only 
be proven from excavations, monuments, 
churches and customs. (13) No actual record or 
documents of this See are extant. It can only be 

10. FEJER GYORGY. "De Avitis 
Magyarorum et Cunorum Sedibus". The 
Hungarians belong to the Finn-Ugor language 
family, p. 103 

Balugyanszky Andras: op. cit. p. 298. 

11. Timor I. "Jmag. Ant. Hung." Vol. III. De 
Motu Hungorum". p. 368. 

12. BALUGYANSZKY ANDRAS. "Op. cit 
pp. .298, 303, 316, 323 

13. BESKID A. NIKOLAJ DR. Op. at. pp 
175-177 



concluded that upon the people becoming 
Catholics, the Apostles Cyril and Methodius 
must have left them with a Bishop, who could 
guard them and their Catholic Faith of the Greek 
Rite, who would protect and guide them in the 
way of Christian truth. 

We read in the "PALLAS NAGY LEXIKON" 
(14) the following: "The Episcopal See of 
Munkacs, is one of the SEVEN Pannonian 
Episcopal Sees, which were established by St. 
Method, the First Pannonian Greek Rite 
Metropolitan in the ninth century. The names of 
bishops we do not know, we only know the 
bishops' names from the year 1491. From 1690 to 
1771 Apostolic Vicars (bishops) were in charge. 
In the year 1771 Pope Clement XIV, reorganized 
the Eparchy-Diocese (that is canonized it), and 
Queen Maria Terezia donated beneficies to the 
diocese. From this time on their own Bishops 
were in charge of the eparchy-diocese, under the 
Prince Primate of Esztergom as a Metropolitan. 
The wide spread eparchy-diocese of Munkacs 
had 742 parishes. In 1818, 194 parishes were taken 
away from the Munkacs eparchy-diocese and 
established the Eperjes - Presov eparchy- 
diocese. 

"In 1821, 72 parishes were formed into the 
Nagy Varad eparchy-diocese. 

"In 1856, 94 parishes became the eparchy- 
diocese of Samosujvar. At present the Munkacs 
eparchy-diocese has 382 parishes, the Bishop is 
Julius Firczak, residing in Ungvar." 

After the time of Cyril and Methodius no 
historical documents can be found concerning 
the Episcopal See of Munkacs, the hordes of the 
East having destroyed them. Others also 
destroyed them through the years whose interest 
was not to have these documents. The Uhro- 
Rusins under the Southern slopes of the North 

14. PALLAS NAGY LEXIKON. Vol. XII. p. 
844 (Budapest. 1896). 



Eastern Carpathian mountains are silenced 
historically, the living are unknown, a small 
group of people are forgotten for centuries, only 
in the Fifteenth century some fragments are 
found here and there. Excavations some day 
may produce evidence of the past. 

Two Greek historians maintain that the 
Hungarian leaders Bultsu and Gyula were 
baptized in Constantinople, (15). Returning to 
Transylvania, they brought many priests with 
them from Constantinople to minister to the 
spiritual needs of these people. Among these was 
Hierotheus who was ordained bishop in 940 A.D., 
by Patriarch Theophilactus. (16) 

St. Methodius, exhausted by his labors and the 
persistent opposition he encountered, died in 885 
in Rome. The religious institutions in Pannonia 
must be credited to this man and we can safely 
say that the Greek Rite was the form of 
Catholicism which existed in the entire territory 
of Pannonia and Transylvania in the ninth 
century. An excellent indication of this 
organization is the entry found in the Breviaries 
of both Prague and Gnezen, where we read: 
"Cyril was appointed Archbishop of Velehrad. 
Pannonia 's SEVEN SEES were subject to his 
jurisdiction." 

An interesting tie with Constantinople and the 
East is made by the unknown Secretary of King 
Bela who asserts that Hungary was in alliance 
with the Emperor at Constantinople. 

On becoming Christians, the Hungarians 
gladly accepted the Rite of Constantinople 
(Greek Rite), the only Rite of which they had 
knowledge. The Church Authorities in Rome 
were not opposed to their acceptance of the 
Greek Rite; they were more concerned with the 
conversion of these people to Christianity and 
Catholicism. 

15. PORHIROG CONSTANTINUS. *'De 
Administratione Imperii" Cap. 40 

16. DULISKOVICS JOANN. "IstoriCeskija 
Oerty Uhro-Russkich". Vol. II. pp 38-39. (Ungvar 
1875) 

8 



When treating the Church and the culture of 
the Hungarians during the time of Arpad (907), 
their great national hero, it is impossible to omit 
the importance of the role played by the Eastern 
Church in the work of their conversion to 
Christianity. The Latinization which crept into 
the nation during a later period can be traced to 
personal preference and glamor of Western 
civilization, rather than to a determined policy of 
the Church, Historical facts are lasting proofs of 
historical events. The scholarly historian Homan 
has thus expressed himself on the role of the 
Greek Rite in the history of the Hungarians: "In 
our time many try to be-little the role of the 
Greek Rite, in the conversion of the Hungarians. 
We must, however, admit that Greek 
missionaries were in this territory in the tenth 
century and that the Sacraments were first 
administered to the Hungarians in the Greek 
Rite." 

It was the holy king, St. Stephen, who first 
turned his eyes Westward. With the charac- 
teristic wisdom of a great statesman, when he 
observed the continuous turmoil in the East, he 
sought help from his Roman Catholic neighbors. 
In 999 A.D., he sent Asterisk, the Archbishop of 
Kalocsa, to solicit the support of Pope Sylvester 
II. It is indisputable that the Pope permitted 
Stephen to assume the title of King. Horanyi 
Elek, an able historian, maintains that Stephen's 
crown was the product of Greek workmanship 
and was sent to Ge'za, Stephen's father, by 
Constantine Porphyrogenitus. (17) It was this 
crown which Stephen sent to the Pope for the 
purpose of receiving his blessing. The crown was 
an open one. The Pope added a cap-like fitting to 
it before sending it back to Stephen. It was this 
additional fitting made by the Pope which 
Baronius confused as a crown, when he states 
that Pope Sylvester sent the crown to Stephen, 
The crown was presented to Geza by the Em- 
peror as a reward for the kindly treatment given 
his prisoners of war by Stephen's father. 

17. BALUGtfANSZKY ANDRAS. Op. cit. pp. 
300-302 



THE RUSIN AND HUNGARIAN CULTURE 
The Rusin and Hungarian cultures, like that of 
many other Central European peoples, stem 
from many sources. We can see a strong Eastern 
influence, a strong infusion of Slovanic elements 
and many Western ideas brought in during the 
years of peaceful commerce or during the stress 
of war efforts. In 940 Thomas, a grandson of 
Arpad, the third king of Turkia, along with 
Bultsu, Lord over the Balaton Lake territory, 
traveled to Constantinople as guest of the Em- 
peror, and Bultsu became a Christian during this 
visit. As was usual on such occasion the Emperor 
gave him the title: "Patricius", as well as many 
valuable gifts. In 953 Gyula, Lord of Tran- 
sylvania, havjng been inspired, also made the 
trip to Constantinople to receive the Sacrament 
of Baptism. Theophilaktos, Patriarch of the 
Imperial City, conferred the Sacrament on him. 
(18) To further the spread of the Faith in the 
Hungarian domain the Patriarch consecrated 
the pious priest Hierotheus and sent him, 
together with a number of assistant priests to 
Turkia. 

Hierotheus, however, converted the entire 
household of Gyula, including his two daughters, 
Kara-Aldut and Sara-Aldut. The conversion of 
Sara-Aldut is of particular importance to us. She 
has come to be known in history as Sarolta, a 
softened form of her name which in the Old 
Bulgar language signified: "White weasel". On 
recommendation of Belyud, Sarolta was married 
to Geza, Lord of Transylvania. ( 19) Vojk, who at 
his baptism took the name of Stephen, was the 
son of Geza and Sarolta. (20) 



18. DULISKOVICS JOANN. Op. cit. pp. 38-39; 
PORPHIROG CONST. Op.^cit. Cap. 40 

19. Balugyanszky Andra's. Op. cit. p. 300 

20. Musztyanovics Emil "Szent Istvani 
Gondola tok". Gorog Katholikus Szemle. Aug. 21, 
1904 



10 



The Pallas Nagy Lexikon (21) states: The 
Magyar king was a Christian, because in 977 his 
parents and uncle Mihaly were Christians. 
Stepehn took his name from the First Martyr 
Stephen. Therefore, it is said mistakenly that 
Bishop Adalbert of Prague baptized him the first 
time. Bishop Adalbert went to Hungary was in 
the year of 993. Yes, Bishop Adalbert was the one 
who prevailed upon Geza, to have his son 
Stephen marry Princess Gizella, the daughter of 
Prince Henry II. of Bavaria". 

The lines of culture cross and re-cross many 
times; thus we find that Pope Sylvester, writing 
to the Archbishop of Esztergom, mentions by 
name nine Episcopal Sees extant at this time in 
Hungary. These were: 1. Eger, 2. Bacs- Kalocs, 
3. Nyitra, 4. Csanlid, 5. Gyor, 6. Pics, 7. Vacz, 8. 
Veszprem, and Nagy Varad." As late as 1939 we 
find that the incumbent Bishop of Nyitra 
requested that on his death a public Requiem 
Service of the Greek Rite CParastas) should be 
sung in his Cathedral over his remains in order 
to recall the ancient status of the Diocese of 
Nyitra. It was Bishop Paul P. Gojdics, OSBM, 
the Greek Rite Catholic Bishop of Presov 
(Eperjes) who fulfilled this pious request. (22) 

Other interesting facts of these dioceses which 
have been lost or have lost their Eastern 
characteristics may also be enumerated; for 
example Genoczy Antal testifies in his book: 
"Dissertation de S. Ladislao", that the diocese of 
Veszprem existed before the time of St. Stephen. 
The diocese of Bacs (23) was subject to 
Methodius, Archbishop of Velehrad, because St. 
Ladislao elevated it to the status of Archdiocese. 
Later when it was united with the diocese of 
Kalocsa it lost its importance and the Ar- 
chepiscopal dignity was given to the Ordinary of 
Kalocsa. 

21. PALLAS NAGY LEXICON. Vol. IX. p. 
731. Pavler Gyula: "A Magyar Nemzet Tor- 
tenete az /SLrpa'dkori Kiralyok Allat. Vol. I. 

22. BLAHOVISTNIK. Presov. 1939 - •»"* 

23. BAZILOVITS J. "Brevis Notitia". 
Cassoviae 1799. Vol. II Cap. X. p. 38 

11 



The history of Csanad is also interesting. On 
the authority of Katona Istvan (24), Achtum, the 
Lord of Morise and a Greek Rite Catholic, 
established a monastery for the Greek Rite 
Catholic monks in his territory. Because of its 
importance, the Provincial of the monastery was 
consecrated a Bishop. Csanad, commander-in- 
chief of Achtum's troops, deserted his Lord and 
joined forces with Stephen (King). With 
Stephen's help, he returned and occupied the 
Monastery of Morise and changed its name to 
Csanad, after himself. It is not surprising to find 
that within a short time the Greek Rite Bishop as 
well as the Monks were expelled from the 
monastery and replaced by Latin Rite monks 
and a Bishop of the Latin Rite. St. Gellert was the 
Bishop of Csanad. He began his work there with 
twelve (12) monks, (25) 

History points to facts that there was much 
Westernizing of these people at that time, 
Stephen was interested in military aid from the 
West; hopeful, also, it appears, to join the great 
body of culture emanating from the Holy Roman 
Empire and the Courts of the West. The Latin 
monks of Csanad had little difficulty persuading 
Stephen through his German spouse Gizella . ( 26) 
to replace the Greek Rite monks with those of the 
Latin Rite. It was their hope to slowly wean these 
Catholics away from their affection for the 
Eastern eustoms and ways. The ruse was suc- 
cessful. The good people, deprived of their own 
Rite, were forced to attend Latin services. They 
were gradually assimilated into the Latin Rite, 
and before they knew what was happening, they 
found themselves no longer Greek Rite 
Catholics. (27) The same thing is happening in 
the United States of America since 1884 ) 

(24) KATONA ISTVAN. "Hist. Crit. Reg. 
Hung." p. 131 , 

(25) BALUGYANSZKY ANDRAS. Op. cit. 
pp. 304-308 . t 

(26) Balugyanszky Andras. Op. Cit. pp. 304- 
308 

(27) BESKID A NIKOLA J DR. Op. cit. pp. 
175-177 

12 



Many monasteries and convents were founded 
in Hungary during the time of St. Stephen. Under 
Geza the famous monastery of Pannonhegyi was 
founded and was completed during the period of 
St. Stephen. It is often stated that this monastery 
was originally of the Latin Rite (28) because the 
wall was decorated with a painting of the 
Benedictine Monastery of Monte Cassino, Italy. 
There, however, is no mention of Benedictine 
monks in the early records of the monastery. At 
Monte Cassino itself it should be pointed out that 
as late as 1204 Catholics of both the Latin and 
Greek Rite lived together harmoniously. The 
monks of Pannonhegyi were dispersed in the 
rebellion during the time of Vatha. In 1204, King 
Imre, writing to Pope Innocent III, mentions the 
monastery at Egyed (29) as being the only one 
occupied by Latin Rite monks at the time. This 
points to the occupation of Pannonhegyi by 
monks of the Eastern Rite. 

We also find that St. Stephen established a 
convent for Greek Rite nuns at Veszpremvolgyi. 
Their document of donation mentions that they 
were dispensed from the jurisdiction of the 
Bishop of Veszprem and were instead entrusted 
to the care of the Archbishop of Esztergom. We 
can certainly conclude that there must have 
been priests of the Greek Rite in that territory to 
simply care for the spiritual needs of this con- 
vent. 

The document of donation contains many 
facts of interest. Written originally in Greek, it 
was translated by Bishop Simon of Pecs in 1109. 
King Kalman, to protect the rights of these nuns, 
affixed his official seal to the original document 
of donation. The document has since been traced 
both in the "Nemzeti Museum" and in the 

(28) DULISKOVICS JOANN. Op. cit. Vol. II. 
P « 

(29) BALUGYANSZKY ANDRAS. Op. cit p. 
305 

13 



"Orszagos Leveltar". The opening words are 
proof of the Greek Rite character of its establish- 
ment. It does not begin: "In nomine Domini 
Dei", or, "In nomine Sanctae Trinitatis*', which 
are typical beginnings for such Latin documents, 
but rather in the more typical Greek Rite 
fashion: "In the name of the Father and the Son 
and the Holy Spirit." {30) The document would 
thus appear to be additional proof of the Rite 
under which the convent was founded. 

It may be asked: Where did these Greek Rite 
nuns come from? Were they from Southern Italy 
or from the Imperial City of Constantinople? ( 31 ) 
The latter seems more probably. The mutual 
esteem in whioh King Stephen and the Emperor 
held each other would seem to indicate that the 
nuns came from Bosphorus. Imre's wife, we 
should remember, was the daughter of the 
Emperor. Both Imre and his wife vowed mutual 
chastity in the Convent at Veszpremvolgyi. We 
should also remember that St. Stephen provided 
a house in Constantinople to shelter the 
Hungarian pilgrims to the Imperial City and its 
holy shrines. 

The cape used during the coronation of the 
Hungarian Kings was the work of these Greek 
Rite nuns. They beautifully embroidered 
Eastern icons although the inscriptions, in ac- 
cord with the expressed wish of Gizella were in 
Latin. (32) The purse was lettered in Old 
Slovanic: "Budi Hospodi milost' Tvoja na nas 
nyni i vo viki". (May God have pity on us now 
and for ages). 



(30) KATONA ISTVAN. Op. cit. Vol. I. Cap. 
SO 

(31) KRAJNYAK GABOR DR. '^Szent 1st van 
Veszpremyblgyi Donaciojanak Gorog Egyhaz 
Vonatkozasai." p.,5 

(32) KRAJNYAK GABOR Dr. Op. cit. p. 11 



14 



'The conclusion of the document is even more 
characteristically Eastern: "Let all who belong 
to this monastery, as long as the heavens and the 
earth last, these (nuns) are given the free right 
to administer the goods of the monastery. Those 
who do not wish to live there under the authority 
of the monastery, without obedience to the Lady 
Abbess, may be expelled, even contrary to their 
own wills. Should anyone take anything that I 
have given to the monastery, whether he or she 
be a subject of this nation or otherwise, be he a 
king of overlord, Bishop or anyone else, may the 
damnation of the Father or the Son, or the Holy 
Spirit fall upon him, as well as that of the Most 
Pure, Most Holy, Most Blessed and glorious 
Queen, the Theotokos and ever-Virgin Mary, 
more glorious than all the Apostles, that of the 
three- hundred eighty Holy Fathers, that of all 
the Saints and that of me, a sinner." (33) 

The Greek culture and Eastern monuments 
have been a casualty of troubled times. One of 
the most harmful of these events was the Schism 
between Constantinople and Rome. This at first 
appeared to be a diplomatic break between the 
two great powers of the East and of the West. 
Later, however, and particularly after the 
establishment of the Latin Kingdom of Con- 
stantinople, the result of the first schismatic 
break became more and more apparent in the 
Central European States. In the early day of the 
A'rpa*d dynasty, for instance, many Eastern Rite 
Catholics became Roman Catholics, not from the 
schismatic tendencies, but rather because they 
had no priests of their Rite to replace those who 
had died. It was the intention of Kinf! Imre to 
provide a special See for the Greek Rite Rusins 
and Hungarians, but his death prevented this. 
After his death, no one seemed to be interested in 
their spiritual welfare or to administer to them 
as Greek Rite Catholics. When their number 

(33) KRAJNYAK GABOR. Op. cit. p. 11 
15 



became sufficiently large enough, they would 
establish their own church. These churches of 
Hungary had no disciplinary or dogmatic dif- 
ferences with Rome. They were simply the 
forgotten people who had to take care of them- 
selves in the best way they knew how. 

In the meantime, schismatic clergy appeared 
on the scene and began to minister to their 
spiritual needs. The people were unaware that 
these priests who were newcomers were not 
subjects of Rome; that is, they followed them, 
unaware that they had let slip the tenuous thread 
that held them to Rome. It was only after this 
experience that their needs became apparent to 
Rome and that steps were taken to bring back 
into the unity of the true Church. 

The Fourteenth and Fifteenth centuries 
witnessed the rise of many Greek Rite Churches 
among the Rusins and Hungarians. In 1254 a 
church was organized in Csemernye, in tht 
county of Zemplen. In 1260 churches were 
erected at Kraszna, Esztergom, Nograd, Myitra 
and in Transylvania. (34) The Greek Rite 
Catholics of Hungary were considerably en- 
couraged and strengthened during the time of 
King Nagy Lajos, when under their Prince, 
Fedor Korjatovics many Rusins entered 
Hungary from Podolia. This was in 1360. During 
(he Turkish invasions of the Balkan Peninsula 
thousands of Rumanians poured into North 
Eastern Hungary. They settled in the counties of 
Maramaros, Szatmar, Ugocsa, Bereg, Ung, 
Besztercze and in parts of Transylvania. The 
spiritual needs of these invaders were taken care 
of by the monks of the Kortvelyes (Hrusov), 
Bilke and Kovesliget (Kameniea). (35) 



(34) KRAJNYAK GABCR DR. Op. cit. p. 11 

(35) DULISKOVICS JOANN. Op. Cit. Vol. II. 
p. 47 



16 



It is strange that these monasteries were 
placed under the jurisdiction of Constantinople. 
It is particularly strange in the case of Kort- 
velyes (Hrusov). This monastery was the 
inheritance of the Balk and Drag families, Fort 
Commanders of Szatmar, Ugocsa and 
Maramaros counties and themselves of the Latin 
Rite. In 1391 they petitioned Antonius IV. 
Patriarch of Constantinople, for a bishop for the 
Rumanians living in their territory. Pachamius 
was sent with jurisdiction over these three 
counties, and the title of Vicar of Kortvelyes 
(Hrusov). (36) 

In 1374, Pope Gregory XI announced his 
willingness to establish a hierarchy for the 
spiritual needs of these people, but the Overlords 
refused this offer. It is obvious that in this par- 
ticular case at least, the Overlords favored 
schism than Union with Rome. Aware of this 
attitude the Church then directed its Hierarchy 
to extend their apostolate over the schismatic 
archpriest of Havaselvi. (37) At the same time, 
the Eparchy of Munkacs was subjected to the 
Archbishop of Eger. (38) 

The issue of reunion with Rome gained great 
momentum especially after the year 1261 which 
saw the end of Eastern Imperialism. Union of the 
great Churches of the East and the West had 
been attempted; first at the Council of Lyons and 
again in 1439 at the Council of Florence. Both 
Churches appeared to have attained an amicable 
understanding. The third party in the struggle, 
the Turks, did all within their power to prevent 
rapprochement. Such a Union would prevent the 

(36) BALUGYANSZKY ANDRAS. Op. Cit. p. 
333 

(37) BALUGYANSZKY ANDRAS. Op. Cit. p. 
326 

(38) ZSATKOVICS KOLOMAN. Jagersikoje 
Vlijanije. Borba Protiv Munkacevskoj 
Greceskaho Obrjada Eparchii. p. 1 



17 



building of the Empire the Turks were then 
planning. However, the desire for Union, so 
clearly manifest at both of these Councils, did 
not die. It bore fruit particularly among the. 
Greek Rite people in Poland and in Latvia when 
in 1595 they were parties to the Union of BREST- 
LITOVSK. 

Following their reunion with Rome, many of 
the priests from the Eparchy of Lemberg (Lvov) 
and Peremysl came to Hungary with the in- 
tention of helping these people achieve reunion 
with Rome. Many obstacles were of course 
placed in the path of reunion. The fortress 
Captain looked on the Union with disdain. As one 
of them, John Baling of Munkacs, so well ex- 
pressed it: "He who installs may also deprive." 
By this he meant that the Bishops who depended 
upon them for their installation might lust as 

easily be deprived of their bishoDric. The same 
could have never been done to the Latin Rite or 

those United with Rome. Thus, in fear of the loss 

of their power to nominate bishops, they fought 

the movement for Union with Rome. The chief 

protagonist in the Munkacs area for Union was 

Bishop Basil Taraszovics. This brave man 

fought for Union with Rome having the ardor of a 

saintly confessor. His opponents, among others, 

included John Baling and George Rakoczy. 

On the day on which Bishop Basil Taraszovics 

was to take his oath of allegiance to Rome and 

while he was celebrating the Divine Liturgy, 

John Balling entered the church seized the 

Bishop, dragged him from the church altar and 

put him into prison. The Archbishop of Esz- 

tergom Archbishop Lippay protested to the King. 

Balling appeased the King with the condition 

that he be deprived of his See and never again 

exercise jurisdiction. The King agreed to this 

iniquitous demand and forced Bishop Basil 

Taraszovics into retirement to Nagy Kallo in the 

county of Szabolcs, where he spent the 

remainder of his life. The King pensioned the 

good Bishop who before his death had the 

1S 



pleasure of seeing his successor to this See 
Bishop Peter Parthen, working strenuously for 
the bolstering of the Faith of these people and 
preparing them for the day of reunion with 
Rome. This was finally achieved in 1646 with the 
Union of Ungvar. (39) 

The hopes of the Hungarian people were 
firmly strenghtened as late as 1912 when Em- 
peror and King Franc Joseph I established the 
Greek Rite Catholic Hungarian Eparchy of 
Hajdu-Dorog with the approval of Pope Pius X. 
Bishop Miklossy Istvan was appointed to this 
See. Upon his death in October 30, 1937, he was 
succeeded by Bishop Miklos Dudas OSBM 
( 1939) , who despite his problems with the new 
Communist regime headed this Greek Rite 
Catholic Eparchy until his death on July 15, 1972. 

Man in his life has three periods: (1) 
Childhood, <2) Youth, <3) Manhood, i.e. Infancy, 
Youth and Maturity, so does he continue in the 
cultural and political life with three periods: (1) 
Slavery, (2} Linguaform, (3) Freedom-Liberty. 
As man becomes self conscious he moves from 
one period to the other proving his maturity of 
civilization. 

The ideology of centuries influenced the soul 
of man so much that Old Europe became youth- 
ful and historically minded. This mentality of 
mankind had begun a new period for the dif- 
ferent nationalities. Those countries in which the 
social order, culture, began to develop logically, 
broke their ties with the oppressed ideology, 
form of government, institutions, customs and 
began a reform in their whole way of life. This 
example is evident in France, England and 
Germany and was a natural consequence of the 
cultural development, to correct the evils of the 
past, to start a new period of self -consciousness, 
to become independent and live an individual 
life. 

(39) BALUGYANSKY ANDRAS. Op. cit. p. 
308. The forgotten people without their own fault, 
fell into Schism, had to make a Union with Rome. 

19 



The marks of an adult life are: when a person 
moves from childhood and youth into a period of 
manhood - maturity. These nationalities on 
whom the rays of culture - civilization -- spread 
only from a distance, had only a desire of a 
civilized youthful life, a lingua from- linguistic, 
national way of life. These ideas and desires of 
the different European nationalities gave them 
freedom and a change from their childhood to 
maturity. This was a natural course of events. 
Yes, this could be noted in the revolution in 
Hungary, when different nationalities who for 
centuries sailed on the ship of the same destiny 
opposed each other. Then, what was the reason 
for the bloody strife (war) that raged among the 
inhabitants? Truly nothing, but the instinct, and 
impulse for freedom, which awoke the national 
elements in Hungary, 

A revolutionary storm developed the powerful 
instinct, which grew day by day and the citizen's 
blood was sprinkled with a life-giving dew. As a 
plant craves for moisture in the Spring, so did 
the people thirst for nationality and freedom. 
What were the results and consequences of the 
revolution? Suffering, bloodshed and even a 
decrease in population, but nothing stopped their 
ideas. In 1848-1849 all nationalities in Hungary 
showed up on the battlefield of freedom. The 
instinct of freedom was still growing. The Ser- 
bians, Croatians, Rumanians continually 
rebelled, not being satisfied with the results of 
the revolution. All this is a proof that the citizens 
of the world, within their hearts, foresaw the 
rebirth of mankind in this struggle for freedom. 

We understand that in the transient period of 
man's state, going from childhood to youth and 
from youth to manhood, certain ideologies are 
characterized. History tells us that the state of 
youth usually steps out with the nationality 
ideology, and manhood gives birth to a freedom 
sensation. Therefore, when the ideology of 
nationalism is fulfilled, the ideology of freedom 

20 



follows. All this is taking its natural course by 
taking up the linguistic cause and nationality, 
without which freedom cannot develop. It is 
similar to a flower cup, which will not let its 
fragrance overflow until it is matured. As soon 
as a nation becomes conscious of its endeavours 
to develop and strengthen its nationality, then it 
is ready for the next move. This pattern is 
followed by all nationalities. 

We know the past of the Slovanic nationalities 
linguistic attitude, also their present tendencies 
and the world is curiously awaiting their sure 
result, and development. It is also known, when 
world history speaks about the victorious and 
glorious Great Roman Empire, that at the same 
time it speaks about their nationality and 
language. 

Here I do not wish to speak about the different 
nationalities, only about a peaceful, meek little 
group of people, who were in the flowing current 
of Hungary and who lost their riverbed and are 
seeking its banks. This small group of people- 
were not attacking the gates of society in order to 
enjoy those rights which were given to all 
nationalities by nature, but waiting humbly for 
their freedom. These people belong to the 
Slovanic race, and bear the name of their cen- 
turies old ancestors RUSIN, a name of which 
they are proud and do not wish to abandon.. 40 
THE RUSINS OF HUNGARY AND 
THEIR CHARACTER 

If we will turn to the pages of history 
discovering the past of the Rusins in Hungary, 
we will note that being loyal citizens, walking 
hand in hand with the Hungarians, they always 
cooperated in the building of Hungary in every 
century. When it was necessary to defend 
freedom and the boundaries of the Country the 
Rusins were there. They lived in the nor- 
theastern slopes south of the Carpathian 

(40) Rusin nationality (linguistic) is their 
ancestors' national name. 



21 



mountains, subjecting themselves to the 
Hungarian Government. During the reign of 
Kings: Kalman, Eiidre II. and Lajos I. (41) 
many more Rusins immigrated from the North 
and East to the Southern slopes of the nor- 
theastern Carpathian mountains. While other 
nationalities fomented revolutions in the 
Country, they stood fast by the Hungarians. Still 
the Rusins of Hungary suffered a great deal and 
instead of being appreciated for their loyalty and 
merit, they became the prey of the Hungarian 
oligarchy, the government of the few. These 
conditions not only humiliated and degraded 
them but also ruined them. They had to struggle 
with misery and were forgotten people, although 
they were thejnost loyal and peaceful people of 
Hungary. In Hungary the Greek Rite Rusins 
numbered over 600,000 dwelling in the territory 
of the following Counties: (42) Szepes, Saros, 
Torna-Abauj, Gomor, Ung, Zemplen, Bereg, 
Ugocsa, Maramaros, Szatmar, Szabolcs and 
Bihar. Some could be found in Szerem and Bacs 
counties especially in Kaesura and Keresztur 
vicinity. They had been re-settled there by the 
Hungarian Government. The Rusins are the 
natives of this territory, i.e. they lived in this 
territory before the Hungarians occupied it. 

The Rusins are healthy, well-developed 
people, rather small in stature, strong-boned, 
broad-chested as mountaineers, their hair blond, 
brownish, reddish brown, their eyes are blue 
grayish. The face is a typical Slovanic face and 
their hearing is excellent. The females are so 
developed and matured at the age of 12-13, that 
at an early age of 16 they often get married. The 
Rusi'ns are of a cheerful disposition, agile, lively 
and ready to serve, friendly with foreigners, 
trustworthy and loyal to all. As other 
nationalities they too like to enjoy themselves at 

(41) MESZAROS KAROLY Op. cit. p. 3. 

(42) MESZAROS KAROLY, Op. cit. p. 4. 



22 



parties and being poor, their food was also very 
poor and was not a good foundation for alcoholic 
drinks especially at parties. Yes, they 
celebrated, after the baptism of the newly-born 
child, also after a funeral. The birthdays and 
name days were remembered. In kindness they 
surpassed many nations. A beggar would not 
leave their home without alms; regardless of 
their poor state, they were always ready to serve 
with kindness. They very rarely violated civil 
law, so that it was hard to find a Rusin in prison. 
As for their religious life, they are devout, pious 
people, attending with joy the various Church 
services of the Greek Rite, which services were 
never too long for them, because they loved to 
pray and glorify God. 

It is a pity, that these Rusin people of good 
understanding, blessed with good inclinations, 
remained poor and practically without their own 
leaders. They were very poorly educated, if we 
may say so. Therefore, their social life did not 
make great strides, still, in comparison to their 
number they had many outstanding in- 
tellectuals. They would not pass by each other 
without a greeting, they even greeted a stranger 
by bowing or tipping their hat. Facts are facts 
which we cannot deny, the educated were of 
Hungarian sentimentality. Brought up in 
Hungarian schools, taught about the Hungarian 
way ol lite and customs, they followed all. Could 
we blame them lor learning from others, not 
having their own government, schools, colleges, 
universities" Whatever they were taught, they 
followed It ts not hard to accuse or blame others 
for their deficiencies. Let us look at other 
nationalities when they were ruled by others; the 
same thing happened to them. For example, the 
Irish people forgot their Gallic language and 
took up the English language. Let us also ob- 
serve what is happening here in the U. S. of 
America U970's) with the third and fourth 
generation Rusins, they too do not speak their 
national language, the language of their an- 

23 



cestors. Some are ashamed of it, do not want to 
be called foreigners, others are careless and 
many became indiffernet which is destroying 
their forefathers' nationality and language. They 
too are influenced by the American way of life 
and not knowing their forefather's language they 
will finally disappear through assimilation, as if 
they never existed. 

In Europe the Government was rightfully 
accused for forcing its language upon other 
nationalities, but here in the United States of 
America no one is forcing the English language 
and still many individual nationals disappear as 
if they never existed in the United States. That is 
the fruit of indifferentism. 

Hal Boland has said: "A frontier is never a 
place. It is a time and way of life. Frontiers pass, 
but they endure in their people. The memories 
should endure. Unless we know where we came 
from, something about the road we travelled as a 
people, HOW CAN WE KNOW WHO ARE WE, 
AND WHERE WE'RE GOING." (43) 

In Hungary, we can enumerate many cases of 
the unfortunate way of life of the Rusins and 
other nationalities. The country's social system, 
i.e. the feudal system, which was built only for 
the benefit of the privileged. Therefore, the poor 
Rusin, who was not of a privileged class, could 
not own land, nor work in a government office. 
Such work was reserved only for the aristocrats, 
of which very few were among the Rusins. 
Furthermore, all this was surrounded by 
nationalism. Only a Hungarian was considered a 
faithful, good citizen of the Country. It is also a 
well-known fact that in Hungary the 
predominant religion was, i.e. it became, the 
Roman Catholic religion, and its hierarchy 
opposed the Greek Rite of the Rusins. This, too, 
g.ne birth to the aristocratic system, which 
became the melting pot for privileges and 

<43> BOLAND HAL. "Readers Digest". 
August 1970 

24 



preferences for certain individuals. The 
privileged system had great power over other 
nationalities, religion and rite, especially the 
Rusin nationals of the Greek Rite of the Catholic 
Church, which was brought about by the temp- 
ting politics of the Jesuit Fathers (44), The 
Hungarian nationality and Catholicism were two 
great forces, which absorbed the Rusin 
aristocratic class, the intellectuals and alienated 
them from their nation and their Greek Rite. 
This can be proven with undeniable facts, that 
the Rusin aristocrats, noblemen, scientists even 
at present could be found among the Hungarian 
families. As the democratic system came to life 
in Hungary and brought equality for all. 

The development of the human spirit has a 
very important condition, self-knowledge for 
individuals and for a nation. The self-knowledge 
is a spiritual necessity, and is an indispensable 
spiritual requirement, which is God's wondrous 
work, i.e., grafted intellectual necessity which 
has developed in the eternal laws that man and 
people, were historically guided by self- 
knowledge. This is the reason why people first of 
all wanted to study and know themselves, before 
they moved on a new course of life. They first of 
all studied their history, the deeds of their an- 
cestors and the way of life, because this was the 
instrument of self-knowledge A mirror which 
has shown not only their true face, but also the 
necessities and deficiencies of which they drew 
faith and hope for all times. The Rusins of 
Hungary, being on the sea of time without a 
compass, a mariner's needle, cruising in a ship 
without self-knowledge, did not have such a 
mirror. Is it any wonder that they could not 
recognize themselves and their circumstances? 
The knowledge about others and of themselves, 
from where did they come, where are they 
going? I will now attempt to describe the present 
life of these good, wonderful and meek Rusins in 
Hungary from the cradle to the grave. 

(44) MESZAROS KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 8. 
25 



The Providence of God arranged matters, 
that mankind's goal is to work, that each 
nationality have a historical vocation. This 
vocational instinct is awakened in the later 
stages of cultural development of the various 
peoples. This is followed by some kind of political 
directive, which changes the status of historical 
ties and has its influence on order. The super- 
t trial politician overlooks this kind of develop- 
ment. 

The Government and nations which do not 
give attention to such national movements and 
do not examine their development, follow a 
wrong path. 

Let us take a look at the results of the 
revolution. The Constitution of a free nation is 
destroyed. The axe became dull on the necks of 
the citizens and their yoke became heavier. We 
must acknowledge that the revolution's un- 
fortunate outcome came from unthinking 
politicians, ordinary people did not realize or see 
its consequences, because they followed the 
politician's revelation harmful to all. Our 
Rusin's historical curse was not having a great 
patriot in which fate God has blessed the Rusihs, 
whose ideas would have had great moral bearing 
upon mankind, had they spoken out. None of 
them dared to stand up. Why? The reason for this 
attitude is that their people did not make a study 
of their national history, did not know their 
circumstances, their impulse, merits, desires or 
ideas. Instead of cooperation and friendship, 
they lighted unconsciously a party fire. The 
Government with watchful eyes was following 
these movements to make its conclusions. A 
nation which wishes to be a self-creator, expects 
justice and freedom from its self. The 
Hungarians wanted it from themselves, but the 
time for this had passed. We can see the same 
signs everywhere a nation is struggling for its 
rebirth, freedom and justice. In the past century 
we note that the struggle is rather for the 
people's freedom than nationality. In Hungary it 

26 



was might and power, but unfortunately, the 
idea of freedom was only a train bearer and 
servant of nationality. (45) The nationalities got 
tired of waiting and began to foment a revolution 
which became the cradle of national freedom, 
and in the meantime harmful for the Hungarian 
nation. 

All this did not cause the death of the 
Hungarian nation, because history built such an 
ark for the idea of freedom that all nationalities 
can fit into it. 

The idea of freedom in the nation's strength 
through the centuries, came from the 
inheritance of their past history. The idea of 
freedom is such an historical testament that if a 
nation does not adopt itself to it, it must topple. 
The Eusins will fall or will never come to nte, it 
they attack it, but neither can the Hungarians 
rise unless they uphold it. 

Let us examine the matter as it is. The Serbs 
broke off with the Hungarian Government, the 
Croations-Chorvats left, the Rumanians 
despised it and the Rusins were ready to leave it. 
(46) Why? Because they feared that the freedom 
idea is an Hungarian monopoly, which could only 
deter the rights of other nationalities. The 
Hungarians replied, we are not avaricious with 
the blessing of freedom, nor are we envious, we 
do not want to suppress any one. We wish to cling 
one to another whom fate has put together. We 
are accepting all nationalities and upholding 
their rights, by wakening brotherly love. We 
know it well that not only the different Slovanic 
nationalities would depart from us, but even the 
Rusins, the "Gens fidelissima". We understood 
well that in the North and East there are 
Slovanic people, but also in the South there are 
about 16 million others, who are luring them with 
their language and religion. The Hungarian 
Government was striving for a closer relation 

(45) MESZAROS KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 13 

(46) MESZAROS KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 14 

27 



with the Rusins, for the sake of peace, good will 
and understanding. All these matters must take 
their proper course in time and can be later used 
as a pacifier. Furthermore many promises were 
made, but how many were upheld'.' 

THE ORIGIN OF THE NATIONAL NAME 

RUS,RUSSYN,RUSIN 
The group of Slovanic people who settled in 
the North-Eastern Carpathian mountains (47) 
invited a Rus (48) to organize them and establish 
a government for them, that they might be led by 
their own leaders. At that time the Rus people 
were also called "Sveoe" Swedes, a name they 
kept to this day. Many scholars derive the name 
of this Slovanic group of people from the Rus 
leader, the sons of Rus, i.e. Rus syn, Ruses son, 
Rusin, Rusiny. The two words became one word. 
RUSIN - RUTHENIAN, from where did the term 
RUTHENIAN come? Actually the word has 
come into the English language through the 
German language, where it was derived from 
neoclassic Latin term, a corruption of the word 
RUSIN, which in a vague sort of way meant: 
Malo Rus, Malyj Rusin, Little Rus, Little Rusin. 
(Small, little in stature) (49). 

In the Old-Slovanic language, according to the 
philologists the word was RUSIN, in English it 
would sound something like RUSH IN. 

The Greeks, neighbors of the Slovanic people, 
were anxious to converse witfi them. They found 
this quite difficult, since many sounds in the 
Slovanic language had no equivalent in the 
Greek language. Therefore they were forced to 
substitute Greek sounds for what they heard 
from the Slovanic people. For the "S" (sh), they 
substituted the Greek sigma or the theta. 

(47) KUBEK EMIL. Ruthenus- Ruthenian. p. 
109 

(48) KUBEK EMIL. Op. cit. p. 110 

(49) KUBEL EMIL. Op. cit. p. 112 

28 



Similarly, in piace of a "V" they substituted with 
phi or beta, the sounds of "F" and "B" for the 
Slovanic "Y" they countered with the Greek 
combination "oi". Constantine Porphyrogentos, 
writing about Eastern Slovanic people and their 
customs, uses such words as SVJATOSLAV - 
Sphendostlabos, MIROSLAV -- Mirosthlabos, 
Slavy -- Sthlaboi. 

The writing and communication was con- 
siderably helped with the formation of the 
Cyrillic alphabet. As everyone knows, most of 
the letters, forms were borrowed from the Greek 
alpha bet, but the new sounds, seven of them, that 
were introduced, made possible the writing of 
every sound used by the Slovanic people. In the 
Rusin alphabet, there are two "i" One is short, 
termed in Greek "etha" similar to the 
Hungarian "e". The other "i" is "iota". To a 
foreigner the Rusin pronunciation of a name 
would sound like "RUSEN". This was not easily 
pronounced, so, in Greek the characteristic "os" 
was added and the word became RUTHENOS or 
RUPHTENOS. Taken over by the Latins, the. 
word became RUTHENUS or Rutheni. (50) 

Most philologists maintain that the word 
"RUTHENUS" is incorrect and not one of the 
Slovanic, Rusin philologists would ever make 
use of the term. 

THE ANCIENT HOME OF 
THE RUSINS 

The ancient dwelling place of a nation could 
be found through tradition and monuments. But 
a more trustworthy instrument in many cases is 
the name of mountains, rivers and cities, which 
do exist even to this day. In every continent of 
the world where people lived, they carved out 
their name in their language, which could not be 
erased. So did the Rusins of Hungary, who lived 
in the Northeastern part of the southern slopes of 

(50) KUBEK EMIL. Op. cit. p. 125 

29 



the Carpathian mountains, a territory in the 
ninth and tenth centuries occupied by the 
Hungarians. To prove this, there is the ancient 
name the river LABORC, which takes its name 
from Prince Lahore. (51) He was killed by the 
Hungarians for opposing them. His body was 
thrown into a river which was renamed Lahore 
in his memory. There is the Ister river i. e., 
Duna, this word also originated from a Slovanic 
word bystry, bystra, swift, fast, which became 
Ister river according to Herodotus and later 
renamed Duna -- Danube according to the 
Secretary of King Bela, who is unknown. The 
Tisza river's name is also a Slovanic word 
"ticha", slowly, quietly moving, which was 
changed to Tisza. The mountain ranges of 
Carpathian mountains, "horb - horbaty", peak, 
mountain, which became KARPATY - Car- 
pathian. The city of Tokay derives its name from 
"stok" (52), i.e., flow, where the Bodrog river 
flows into the Tisza river. There are many and 
many more names which are of Slovanic origin. 
All these facts prove that the Rusins were the 
ancient dwellers of this territory, which was 
known as Hungary, and in 1919 it was named 
Podkarpatska Rus, a part of Czechoslovakia, 
later it was forcefully occupied by Soviet Russia 
in 1944. In the early ages the Hungarians had to 
conquer the Rusin leader to establish their 
homeland in this Rusin territory. 

THE UHRO-RUSINS POLITICAL VIEWS 
In the middle ages the Rusins began to come 
to life during the immigration period. Im- 
migrating from India, they settled in Europe in 
the territory from the North Sea to the Tisza, and 
Duna rivers (53) , they soon got lost in the great 
waves of the Huns and Avars. As the greater 
river swallows the little brook, the Hungarian 



(51) MESZAROS KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 20 

(52) MESZAROS KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 21 

(53) KUPCANKO HRIHORIJ. Op. cit. p. 1 



30 



immigrants swallowed up the Slovanic and the 
Rumanians who immigrated with them, also the 
original settlers. The conquering Hungarians 
sounded their crackling guns, from the for- 
tresses, bringing fear to the Rusins. This 
shooting drove the Rusins into the fields. Being 
unable to fertilize the furrows with blood, which 
gave life, but they did it with the sweat of their 
brow, sprinkling the furrows with it for the 
benefit of the conqueror. So the Rusin became 
the servant of the Hungarians. That was the 
prize of the revolution for the conqueror. We 
cannot name this a sin, Hungarian pride, but this 
was the way of life in^the middle ages, which 
soiled not only the settlers of the Carpathian 
territory, but also other European people. This 
was the period when the merit of war was 
worshipped as God. 

The European cities were filled with military 
overlords, who in their pride did not 
acknowledge any law. The ordinary people 
deprived of their possessions, became the 
condemned servants for not being on the battle 
field in combat. This attitude was very much 
developed among the Hungarians, only the 
soldier was considered a citizen, others were 
deprived of their citizenship and became slaves. 
(54) To be a Master, a country gentleman, you 
had to be a soldier and being a soldier you 
became a good Hungarian also. The idea of being 
a citizen consisted of three elements: 1) To be a 
Master (Ur) you had to be a Hungarian. 2) Only 
a soldier could become a Master. 3) Only a 
soldier was entitled to that right. The Rusins fell 
into feudalism on account of these ideas, because 
they were unable to merit rights and uplift 
themselves socially into positions, to sprout out 
as citizens. 

The guiding star of man is Christianity, which 
is usually darkened in these worldly movements. 
So Christianity began to shine up and bring 
equality to man, as it was willed by God. 

(54) MESZAROS KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 30 

31 



At that time the Rusins were already 
Christians, a status beneficial to them. Many of 
the Hungarian noblemen accepted the religion of 
the Rusin people, built churches and respected 
the rights of citizens. 

They built monasteries and were charitable in 
deeds. Already in the time of St. Stephen, the 
First King of Hungary, complaints developed to 
such a degree, that the Pope of Rome notified the 
Sovereign, that although he is happy hearing 
about the advancement of Christianity and the 
charitable patronization, he delpored that they 
did not turn such an attention to the Roman Latin 
Rite as they did to the Greek Rite religion, the 
religion of the Rusins. (55) 

Here we may note that the Rusins at the time 
when taken over by the Hungarians, devoutedly 
practiced their religion. Therefore, politically 
they could not be totally oppressed, because then 
politics and religion walked together hand in 
hand. Where religion reigned, there was no 
slavery either. 

THE RUSINS' EPARCHY AND THE 

IMMIGRATION OF HUNGARIANS AND 

THE DAYS THAT FOLLOWED 

The people's ideal of life is divided into 
periods as childhood, youth and manhood, Man 
must pass these periods to gain his goal, which is 
a period, i.e., movement of the people's 
development. People who are not developed 
became the raw material of politics, instead 
politics becoming their master. First of all, 
mysticism through religion influences the idea 
and it is nursed by it, when it becomes conscious 
of its strength and begins to weigh matters, i.e. it 
steps into' youthful days and goes into alliance 
with philosophy. Both give it only a dim view, 
which is the fog of faith, hope and desire. On 
account of this fog man cannot see well and it is 

(55) MESZAROS KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 33 

32 



led only by a touch. But when it steps into 
manhood, then the fog begins to disappear, it 
begins to depend on facts, necessities and 
desires, to gain this period all races must go 
through mysticism and phases of consciousness. 
Races who do not have their independent social 
life, who are the elements of some nation, also 
appear on the stage of history. 

The Rusins in Hungary acted in such a 
manner in the past they lost their political 
weight, but through their morality they had 
great influence especially on the immigrant 
Hungarians. Before the Hungarians occupied 
their territory, Christianity was progressing 
among the Rusins. History tells us that these 
provinces which the Hungarians occupied 
belonged to the sovereigns Svjatopolk, Ratislav 
and Koczel. These sovereigns feared German 
expansion. Wishing to be secured politically and 
religiously, they sent their envoys to Emperor 
Michael of Bizanc to gain his friendship and 
alliance. (56) The envoys advised the Emperor 
that the inhabitants of Pannonia and Moravia 
are Christians, but they do not have teachers, 
priests, leaders who would explain the Scripture. 
The envoys humbly begged the Greek Emperor 
Michael to send teachers, priests to their 
territories. This period antedated the Hungarian 
immigration. There is evidence which proves 
that there was religion and belief among these 
nationals, among whom were the Rusins, who 
also were Christians. In this respect, the Rusins 
were of higher culture than the Hungarians, who 
were at that time pagans. 

The "PALLAS NAGY LEXIKON" tells us the 
following: "The Episcopal See of Munkacs, is 
one of the seven Pannonian Episcopal Sees, 
which was established by St. Methodius, the 
First Pannonian Greek Rite Metropolitan in the 
ninth century. The names of bishops we do not 

56. MESZAROS KAROLY OP- ci t. p. 35 

33 



have, only from the year of 1491. From 1690-1771 
Apostolic Vicars were in charge. In the year 1771 
Pope Clement XIV, through the intercession of 
Empress-Queen Maria Terezia established the 
Eparchy of Munkacs, to which Eparchy the 
benevolent Empress-Queen donated property, 
etc. (57)." 

Greek historians maintain that the Hungarian 
leaders Bultsu and Gyula also Ge'za were bap- 
tized in Constantinople. Returning to Tran- 
sylvania they brought many priests with them 
from Constantinople to administer the spiritual 
needs of these people. (58) Therefore, the 
Hungarians were Christianized first in the Greek 
Rite and later became Latinized Fredrick 
Lampe in his" book: "The Established Magyar 
Churches", states definitely and adds proof that 
the conversion of the Hungarians was ac- 
complished not by the Latin Rite, but they should 
"be thankful to the Greek Rite clergy". It is also 
noteworthy to remark that the Greek Rite at that 
time was still in Union with Rome. (59) 

The Hungarian leader Arpad married a Rusin 
princess. (60) This also proves the Union of both 
Rites, otherwise the Pope would not have ap- 
proved such a marriage.UitJ 

To recall earlier historical facts, concerning 
the Rusins' religion, Church and its culture, let 
us take a look at the territory where Christianity 
was spread at first. The territory was Pannonia 
(Dunantul) and the North Eastern Southern 

(57) PALLAS NAGY LEXIKON. Vol. XII. p. 
844 

(58) PORPHIROG CONST. Op. cit. Cap. X. 

(59) BALUGYANSZKY ANDRXs. Op. cit. p. 
294 

DECSI ANTAL. "A Magyar 
Oroszokrol". pp. 16-17 

MESZA'ROS KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 37 

(60) BALUGYA'nSZKY ANDRAS. Op. cit. p. 

294 * 

(61) MESZAROS KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 37 

34 



slopes of the Carpathian mountains, which 
territory became Hungary by occupation. The 
Rusins were Christians many, many years before 
the Hungarians took up Christianity. The Rusins 
converted the immigrant Huns, Avars and 
especially the Rusins who immigrated with 
them . It was the will of God, that these oppressed 
people whom this bloody period drove into the 
burdensome heavy yoke should impress their 
conquerors to such a degree with their morality, 
way of life and religion that the Hungarians 
accepted not only their religion, but also their 
Greek Rite. 

Even Sarolta, the daughter of the Tran- 
sylvanian Sovereign Gyula, was baptized in the 
Greek Rite. It is also a known fact that Ge'za who 
married Sarolta, during his time the greater part 
of Hungarians were practicing Christianity in 
the Greek Rite. To prove this fact, I refer to the 
letter of Bishop Piligrin of Patava, who wrote 
the following to Pope Benedict in the year 980: 
"In Hungary Christianity is freely practiced, 
and churches are built without any hindrance." 
(62) 

As Christianity spread among the Slovanic 
people in Pannonia and in the neighboring 
territory of Moravia, the Emperor Michael III of 
Constantinople was petitioned to send teachers 
lo these peopie, who knew the Slovanic language. 
The Emperor sent them two Greek monks Cyril 
and Methodius, who converted the Bulgarians to 
Christianity. The two Greek monks were very 
successful in converting the Slovanic people by 
translating the Greek Liturgical Books into the 
Slovanic language. Among the different Slovanic 
people, the Rusins were also Christianized, 
before Attila's (889) invasion, they also had their 
Episcopal See, practicing their religion in their 
own language, the Old Slovanic, not knowing the 

(62) MESZAROS KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 39 

35 



Greek, the Latin nor German language. St. 
Bruno who is also known to have worked among 
the Slovanic peoples, was also successful in 
spreading the teaching of Christ among them, 
because fie knew their language. (63) 

Yes, the oppressed Rusin people's language 
was spoken in the House of the Arpads. Prince 
Geza married a Rusin princess from Belekin. 
Geza was baptized by a Greek Rite Catholic 
priest, so was his son Vojk, who in the 
Sacrament of Baptism received the name Istvan 
(Stephen) and later became the Fiirst King of 
Hungary. In those days the Greek Rite was 
flourishing and was highly esteemed and 
respected. The Latin Rite was in a very small 
minority, but in the coming years, it found its 
way, not only in the national soul, but also into 
the Constitution of Hungary, becoming the State 
religion, and politics forced the decline of the 
Greek Rite in Hungary. (64) 

THE BREAK OF THE EASTERN AND 
WESTERN CHURCH-ITS EFFECTS UPON 
THE RACES IN HUNGARY, ESPECIALLY 
THE FATE OF THE RUSINS. 



In the ninth century the Christian spirit in 
Hungary was well known, but the great joy of 
success soon was disturbed, through the break 
of the East and West, a break caused by political 
powers separating the people from one another, 
which was also harmful politically. Patriarch 
Photius was one who brought forth the break. 
Being a nobleman by birth, rich, a great scholar 
and one of the most clever diplomats of his time, 
he received high ranks early in his life. As a 
young man, he became a bodyguard Captain and 

(63) MESZAROS KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 39 

(64) FEJER GEORGIUS "Vita Sancti 
Stephani". p. 101 

36 



was sent to the Calif of Bagdad. During the reign 
of Emperor Michael III he was appointed a vice- 
secretary and through his office he befriended 
Bardas, the Emperor's uncle. Through Bardas 
Photius found a way to send Patriarch Ignatius 
to exile persuading the Emperor to consent and 
to appoint him as a Patriarch in place of 
Ignatius. Photius, a layman, received all Ec- 
clesiastical Orders in six days and was ordained 
a Patriarch (858) by Bishop Gregory of 
Syracuse, who only a few days before was 
deposed from office by a Roman Bishop as a 
representative of the Pope. (65) Wishing to 
obtain recognition of his election, Photius, as a 
-diplomat sent his envoys to Pope Nicholas with 
the request that the Pope's delegates seek unity. 
The two delegates of the Pope were present at 
the Council of Constantinople. At this Council ■& 
resolution was brought and approved to reinstate 
Ignatius and an appeal sent to the Pope. The 
Pope did consent to this request and dismissed 
Photius from his office and dignity, recalling 
Ignatius back to his post. 

Photius, to revenge himself, held another 
Council in Constantinople, dismissed the Pope 
from his office, anathemized him, accusing the 
Roman Church of being heretical. In 667 Em- 
peror Michael was assassinated by Basilius; in 
return the murderer became the Emperor, who 
reinstated Photius and sent Ignatius to a 
monastery in exile. In the year 878 Patriarch 
Ignatius died, and the Patriarchal See was 
vacant. Photius again became Patriarch. In 879 
the Pope (66) through his delegates consented to 
recognize his election as Patriarch on the con- 
dition that Bulgaria be given over to Papal 
control. When the Emperor objected to the 
agreement, Photius was forced to break the 
agreement. The Pope withdrew his approval of 
Photius election and placed an anathema on him. 

(65) M^SZAROS KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 40. 

(66) MESZAROS KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 41 

37 



All this occurred during Pope John VIII reign, 
but when Leo, the son of Basilhis, became 
Emperor in 886, Photius was again demoted 
from his office and sent to exile to an Armenian 
monastery where be died, in 891. (67) 

With the death of Photius the quarrels, 
misunderstanding in the Church continued 
among the Rites, brought on not by religion but 
by politics. Cyril and Methodius converted the 
Moravians, the Czechs and the Rusins to 
Christianity, then the Hungarians arrived, who 
were always in the neighborhood of the Slovanic 
people, and also understood the Slovanic 
language, although they are of a different family 
of languages. (Ural Altay). Politically, they 
were oriented towards the Slovanic people, 
sovereigns, princes, who were Christians. 
History tells us that at the time of the arrival of 
the Hungarians, in the Danubian basin, many 
princes were governing the territory. From the 
Tisza river to the Maros river was the Bihar 
prince Menmoruth, from there to Vidin were 
wide open spaces. Governed by Glad, this 
territory was named the Nyirseg territory, (68) 
These princes were Rusins, whom some 
historians claim to be Bulgarians. When Arpad 
the Hungarian leader arrived with his 
conquering army, one of his descendants, 
Achtum, took up Christianity in the Greek Rite, 
and many noblemen and their subjects followed. 
Achtum, to help spread Christianity, built a 
Greek Rite Monastery for the Basilian Fathers 
in Marosen on the banks of the Maros river. 
According to the Greek Rite custom, the 
Provincial of the monastery was usually ap- 
pointed a bishop of the territory. Sunad ( Csana'd) 
one of Achtum's leaders, clashed with Achtum 
and escaped to Istvan (Stephen) asking his 
protection and promising him to work for him. 
Being under the protection of Stephen, he took 

(67) M^SZAROS KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 41 

(68) MtfsZXROS kXPOLY. Op. cit. p. 42 

38 



command of an army, with which he went to 
battle against Achtum. This battle occurred at 
Arad and Sunad was defeated by Achtum's 
army. The conquering Achtum held a victory 
feast all night and went to sleep late. In the 
meantime Sunad gathered his dispersed army, 
attacked the army of Achtum and killed Achtum, 
took over Achtum's possessions and received 
Stephen's friendship. Since then the Morisen 
name was changed to Sunad, and later on 
became Csanad. (69) 

In thankfulness to God for bis victory Sunad 
built a monastery for the Basilian Fathers on the 
hill of his decisive victory. The Basilian Fathers 
did not last long in this monastery. Tbey were 
driven out by the Latin Rite Benedictine Order 
Fathers and went to Kraszna monastery. St. 
Gellert was the first Bishop of Csanad (Latin 
Bite) with twelve German monks. Slowly the 
Hungarians were influenced to take up the Latin 
Rite. If St. Stephen, the First King of Hungary, 
would not have been infatuated with the aroma 
of the Western incense, the Latin Rite and its 
language, the future of the Hungarian nation 
could have been more beneficial to the 
Hungarians, if they would have followed the idea 
of the Slovanic people, who when they wished to 
become Christians, asked the Eastern Emperor 
for teachers who spoke their language. The 
Hungarians too could have found men who spoke 
the Hungarian language and would have taught 
religion in the language of the people. This would 
have elevated the Hungarian language and 
nationality. The Hungarian language did not 
become the language of the altar, but Latin, 
which also became the official language of 
Hungary. 

It took the Hungarians centuries to have 
Hungarian as the official language in Hungary. 
It was only in 1848 that Grof Szeche'nyi in- 
troduced the Hungarian language as the official 

(69) MESZA'ROS KA'ROLY. Op. cit. p. 42 

59 



language of Hungary. The Rusins, although 
dominated by Hungarians, preserved their 
nationality through the Slovanic usage of the 
Greek Rite. The Hungarians could have done the 
same; what is more, many nationalities would 
have become Hungarians, which would have 
built up the Country. What do we see today? We 
must look for Hungarian Hungarians with a 
candle, even though Hungary still exists today 
and tne official language is Hungarian. But how 
much greater could the national group of people 
have been? 

Let us not forget that a nation lives in its 
language. Remember the adage about soup: 
feed yourself with your own spoon and do not 
wait for someone else's spoon to feed you. You 
will have a long wait and maybe starvation. 
Take a look at the Slovanic nations and see how 
large they are numerically. Why? The language 
of the altar made them numerically large, 
foreign language will gradually diminish their 
number as it is being done in the United States of 
America (1970's). 

In the year of 803 Charlemagne and the Latin 
Rite Hierarchy were practically forcing 
Christianity in Pannonia and in Moravia in a 
language the people did not understand, so they 
became Christians by name. When Cyril and 
Methodius (884) arrived knowing the language of 
the people, the people understood the teaching of 
Christ, the Gospels were explained, also the 
Divine Services. No wonder that the people 
followed them in large numbers. A Latin Rite 
priest Richard, by name, seeing all this, 
reported Methodius to Rome, accusing him of 
not explaining the faith according to Roman 
Catholicism, not using the Latin language in the 
Mass, but a rude Slovanic language. 

Pope JohnSflH received this report, sent a 
letter to Methodius. (70) Accusations were set in 
a letter to Methodius, requesting a reply to the 

(70) DQBNER L. "Annales" III. p. 184 

AO 



accusations. Methodius, upon receiving the 
letter, set out with Svatopluk's envoy to Rome. 
The Pope in the presence of Cardinals strictly 
examined Methodius in the Catholic Faith and its 
teaching. The Pope was very much pleased with 
the knowledge of Methodius about the Catholic 
Faith - religion. Methodius was not condemned, 
but praised for his knowledge, receiving per- 
mission to propagate and teach in the Slovanic 
language and also use the Slovanic language as 
the language of the altar 

Methodius with his co-workers began to 
preach in Slovanic, translating the Divine 
Services from Greek to Old Slovanic which the 
people understood. The Translation progressed 
so that in 900, not only the Divine Services were 
translated, but also the explanations of the 
services. (71) 

This period was the most beneficial and 
progressive time of the Slovanic people; not only 
were they governed by their own Sovereigns, but 
even the teaching of Christ was taught to them in 
their own language, and all this had a great 
moral effect upon the people. If the difficulties 
between the Eastern and Western Church had 
not already begun in all probability the Pope 
would not have given his permission to 
Methodius to teach in the Slovanic language and 
translate the Divine Services. Because the Pope 
feared the possible loss of this people, he gave his 
consent, not to spread Heterodoxy lest they fall 
to Heterodoxy. 

The Rusins of Pannonia who also belonged to 
the Slovanic race, also were converted by 
Methodius and his co-workers, (72) who 
steadfastly held to their Greek Rite and the 
Slovanic language which they understood. 



(71) MESZAROS KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 47 

(72) SZIRMAY. Notitia Topographica Cottus 
Zempd' p. 50 



41 



THE RELIGIOUS MISUNDERSTANDINGS 
AND THE FATE OF THE RUSINS 

The battles to establish a home came to an 
end. Hungary became a State, a nation. Their 
leaders gave up their former ideas, placed their 
sword in the scabbard, gave up attacking, 
thievery and remained only in their own boun- 
daries. The physical revolution beeame an in- 
tellectual. In those days the majority of the 
Hungarians were pagans, but their neighbors 
were Christians. They were urged by these 
Christians to take up Christian faith, which could 
be very helpful to them in their lives. This task 
was not an easy one for the Hungarians, to give 
up their ancestral pagan morals to which they 
were very much attached and become 
Christians. Their great leaders Bultsu and Gyula 
were Christians. Gyula junior, prince of Tran- 
sylvania, when told to become Christian, replied 
with a revolution. When Ge'za died (997) his son 
Istvan (Stephen) succeeded to the throne. His 
first order was that all the Hungarians are to be 
baptized, and the slaves are to be set free. Ruling 
was not an easy task for Istvan (Stephen), 
because some of the people were dissatisfied 
with this order. 

The first person to oppose this order was 
Kupa, the prince of Somogy, who started a 
revolt, but Istvan (Stephen) conquered him with 
his volunteer soldiers. But tlie defeat of Kupa did 
not destroy altogether the'se intentions, since 
many of the people had become Christian&anljt 
out of fear. 

Tuhutum, leader of Transylvania in 
Christianity, also saw the loss of freedom, and 
the headman's sword in Istva'n's hand. Istvan 
(Stephen) had to struggle not only with the 
pagans, but also with the Old Believers of the 
Greek Rite, who had become politically-minded. 
Istvan was trying to draw the Rusins to himself, 
and the Greek Emperor objected. In this 
struggle Istvan finally succeeded, so did the 



Church of Rome. Slowly the pagans and those of 
the Greek Rite were feeling the pressure from 
the authorities. The Roman Catholics were 
favored by Istvan, in whom he had confidence, 
favoring them with positions etc... (73) 

During these troublesome years, if we search 
for the Rusin's political and national history, our 
search would be in vain, their fate was similar to 
the fate of other nationalities. Concerning 
religion King Istvan (Stephen) in the beginning 
upheld the Greek Rite in which he was baptized, 
propagating it with good deeds. In Veszprem he 
erected a convent for the Greek Rite Sisters and 
presented land to them. In later years after his 
marriage to Gizella the Bavarian princess, he 
changed his attitude turning to the Latin Rite. 
The Rusins were devout Catholics of the Greek 
Rite from the very beginning and always 
remained so, but became the forgotten through 
politics, which politics began to name them 
schismatics, dissidents in Faith. To accuse 
anyone is not a hard thing to do for some; the 
question remains, is the accusation a fact or only 
a hearsay. History tells us that during the reign 
of King Nagy Lajos, many schismatics im- 
migrated to Hungary, these were the 
schismatics and not the Rusins whose ancestors 
were converted by Cyril and Methodius. The 
immigrant Rusins were seeking ties with Con- 
stantinople and not the natives. (74) 

THE CONDITIONS OF THE RUSINS IN 
HUNGARY DURING THE REIGN OF KING 
ENDRE 1. 1049-1060 TO KING ST. LASZLO 1077- 
1095 

The attempt of Istvan (Stephen) King of 
Hungary to bring in a monarchical system 
succeeded, and Hungary began to take on a 

(73) HARTVJCUS. Via S. Stephani. pp 2-13 

M^SZAROS KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 49. 

(74) MEJSZAROS KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 53 

DECSI ANTAL. Op cit. p> 28 

43 



European outlook. This unity pushed out the 

Oligarchy and all nationalities began to work 
together for the betterment of the Country. All 
nationalities were freely using their own 
language hindered by no one. Even King Istvan 
(Stephen) made the statement: "the more 
nationalities in a Country the stronger will that 
Country become." (75) Regardless how small of 
a group the nationality would be in a Country, it 
could cause anxiety, worry. 

In this period the Hungarians were so much 
civilized as ideal nationalities, and this was the 
reason to look up to other nationalities, and 
benefit by their learning and understanding. The 
Rusins had greater advantage over the 
Hungarians, being more civilized by being 
Christians, who practiced the Catholic religion 
according to the Greek Rite, in the Old-Slovanic 
language. The Hungarians were closely tied to 
the Rusins through marriage. King Endre I. 
< 1047-1060) married Princess Anastasia, he also 
established a monastery in Visegrad, which in 
1221 ceased to exist. The monastery was built for 
the Greek Rite faithful, that they might have 
their Divine Services and satisfy their spiritual 
needs and not for the Queen who did not live in 
Visegrad, but in Sarospatak, Zemplen County. 
(76) 

Many of the Hungarian Sovereigns used Rusin 
names as: Basil, Laszlo, etc. This is also a proof 
that the Sovereigns were closely tied to the 
Rusins, King Endre I and Geza I both married 
Rusin Princesses. Concerning the name: Goi, 
Gojz, Geza in the Old Slovanic language meant a 
tutor - educator. Imre originated from the word 
Mirko - meek, it then became Emericus and in 
Hungarian Imre. Bela meant beautiful, hand- 
some, nice. Laszlo - Ulaszlo are two Rusin words 
Vlada - power, sovereignity and Slava - glory, 

(75) MfiSZAROS KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 53 
(761 MESZAROS KAROLY Op. cit. p. 54 



44 



f the two words became one word Vladislav, 

Laszlo Uiaszlo. (77) 

THE FATE OF THE RUSINS 
DURING 1077-1141 

King St. Laszlo, a descendant from the Arpad 
family of kings, was one of the most loved and 
memorable Hungarian kings. He was very 
handsome and well-educated. When his army 
ended the conflict with invading enemies, he 
turned his mind towards order in the govern- 
ment and the security of the Church. His belief 
was that this was the only way to achieve 
European culture, a great task on account of the 
split of East and Western churches, which soon 
became a political issue. This prudent Sovereign 
was especially interested in these matters, 
because in his Country the greater part of the 
population was of the Greek Rite and some of the 
Latin Rite, and he foresaw a possibility of a flare 
up between the two rites. King St. Laszlo loved 
his subjects, he would not prohibit any religion or 
rite especially Christian religion. As a Roman 
Catholic of the Latin Rite, he deemed it 
necessary to give a good example as a Catholic 
King stating that glorifying God in Latin or in 
Slovanic is the same, the main thing is that you 
glorify God. In the time of St. Laszlo Holy 
Eucharist was received under the form of bread 
and wine, or bread, but he always preferred to 
receive Communion under both species. (78) 

In the meantime, the Huns invaded the 
country, very often disturbing peace in the 
country, destroying churches, persecuting the 
Catholics. King St. Laszlo overcame these dif- 
ficulties with his prudent law, although the 
Catholic religion (Latin Rite) was the State 
religion he still favored the Greek Rite and not 
the Latin Rite. An example of this can be found in 
an edict concerning fasting. The Greek Rite rule 

(77) TIMON. Imag. Nov. Reg. Hung. p. 217 

(78) KATONA ISTVAN. Op. cit. p. 255 Vol. II. 

45 



of fasting was the tradition of the Country and 
the King flatly stated: "Those subjects of the 
Latin Rite who refuse to fast according to 
Hungarian custom could leave the Country." 
(79) 

At that time in Hungary the Church followed 
the Greek Rite rules of fasting. St. Laszlo spoke 
also about the second marriage of the clergy, 
which was accepted by the Greek Rite, but 
forbidden in the Latin Rite. Regardless of the 
discipline, the kings many a time overlooked this 
Roman discipline (80) for the sake of spreading 
Christianity which was more important than the 
discipline. 

We may say it truly, that at that time the 
Greek Rite «was the Mother Church. After 
Michael Cerularius in 1054 made the break 
between the East and West, Pope Gregory VII 
1 1073-1085) reminded Geza, Laszlo and Salamon, 
Sovereigns of Hungary, to be obedient to the 
Church. Whereas at the time the Pope sent titles 
to the Red-Rusin (red cheek Rusins) Sovereigns, 
(81) Croatians and Dalmatians, to tie them down 
to be loyal to the Roman See. The Latin Rite 
Mass began to spread to deter the Easterners to 
have ties with the East. The Roman Church's 
effort was not in vain, because during the reign 
of King Kalman (1095-1116) celibacy was in- 
troduced FOR THE LATIN RITE CLERGY, a 
development which made them different from 
the Greek Rite Eastern Church. Those priests of 
the Latin Rite who got married were deprived of 
their benefice. 

During the reign of King Kalman in 1112, the 
Fifth and Sixth National Council declared that 
the Church's language without exception is the 
scientific Latin language, without which no one 

(79) CORPUS JURIS HUNG. DECRET 

LADISLAUS. Vol. I 

(801 CORPUS JURIS DECRETUM 

LADISLAUS. Vol. I 

(81 > BALUGYANSZKY ANDRAS. Op. cit. p. 310 

46 



can become a priest. Even those who were or- 
dained before the Council must learn the Latin 
language or they will be discharged from their 
duties. These circumstances had great effect 
upon the Greek Rite Catholic Church, and many 
Slovanic people were inclined to take up the 
Latin Rite. The Old-Slovanic language of the 
Altar had reached its peak and now began to 
decline; Latin was rising. The great Nyitra 
Greek Rite Catholic Episcopal See ceased to 
exist by the force and the authority of Roman 
See. (82) 

THE OPPRESSION OF THE GREEK RITE 
PEOPLE'S CHURCH IN HUNGARY FROM 
1131-1235 

During the reign of King Kalman the Roman 
Catholic Hierarchy reached its peak in Hungary 
by the forced Latin Rite. In this period the Greek 
Rite was set back and only tolerated not being 
nursed by the authorities whose obligation was to 
propagate Catholicity. They instead propagated 
power and authority. If the Hungarians would 
have been independent from the Latin Hierarchy 
and would have introduced the Hungarian 
language as the language of the Altar instead of 
the Latin language as the Slovanic people had 
done, they could have built up the Hungarian 
nationality greater year by year. 

It is an undeniable fact, that a nation which 
placed its language upon the Altar, even if ruled 
by another nationality and did not command 
political weight, did not lose its language, 
nationality or customs. The Rusins were 
dominated by the Hungarians for over 1000 
years, but they still speak their language even in 
the XXth century, because the two brothers, 
religion and nationality, awoke from their 
slumber and strive, not to forget the language of 

(82) MESZAROS KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 59 
KATONA I. Op. cit. Vol. HI. p- 78 

47 



their forefathers, who made them great and to 
make their nationality known. Even the Church 
has changed its attitude to vernacular at the 
Second Vatican Council (1963). 

In ages past the Hungarian kings did not think 
about this. The friendship of Popes was more 
important and made the people and Church 
dependent upon them, and secured their crowns 
and authority. They did not notice that the use of 
the Latin language was harmful, detrimental to 
the development of the Hungarian language; 
Latin and not Hungarian became the language of 
literature and this tended toward stagnation 
rather than any real development. 

There were times when some Hungarians 
were very much attached to the Greek Rite 
Catholicity and were persecuted for it, because 
the Latin Rite was favored by the kings. 

Some of the Sovereigns noticed the great 
influence 01 Kome in their kingdom, and they 
wished to stop the influence, but could not 
without harm. King Imre U196-1204) petitioned 
Rome to establish a Greek Rite Catholic 
Episcopal See, which would be independent in its 
Eparchial administration. 

Pope Innocent III (1179-1180) resented King 
Imre's petition, but did not wish to show his 
feelings and attitude, informed the Bishop of 
Varad and the Veszprem Abbot to examine the 
Greek Rite situation (1204). In the meantime 
King Imre died, so did his petition. (83) 

What kind of a report was sent by the Bishop 
of Varad and the Abbot of Veszprem to the Pope 
is not known, but it seems that it was not 
favorable, because in the same year the Pope 
wrote to King Imre accusing him of neglecting 
the Latin Rite, having only ONE LATIN RITE 
MONASTERY, and that in some Greek Rite 



(83) MESZAROS KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 64. 

BALUGYANSZKY ANDRAS. Op. cit. p. 
311. 



48 



monasteries Latin Rite priests are housed, not 
having their own monastery. (84) During King 
Kalman's reign there were Greek Rite Episcopal 
Sees which were administered independently 
from the Latin R'tc Hierarchy. Pope Innocent III 
wanted them to be Latinized too. Among them 
was the Belenyes Greek Rite Episcopal See, the 
Archbishop of Kalocsa received strict orders to 
take this Episcopal See under his jurisdiction 
and in the meantime introduce the Latin Rite to 
them. In later years the Hungarian nation suf- 
fered on account of this Latin victory, because 
this victory opened the door to the Pope's in- 
fluence in Hungary, the effects of which were felt 
for centuries. From this time on the Church of 
Rome not only advised the Sovereign by its 
power, but was also influential in the Com- 
monwealth. This influence had great effect upon 
the Greek Rite also, and swept it back to a state 
of childhood. Similar attitude also appeared in 
Galicia, In 1207 Pope Gregory sent his envoys to 
work hard and convert the Greek Rite faithful to 
the Latin Rite, and to accept Papal authority. 
(85) The same was done in Hungary, When and 
wherever it was possible to lessen the influence 
of Greek Rite it was done by the workers of the 
Church of Rome, who were interested in a Rite, 
authority and numerical figures rather than 
Catholicity. 

THE UNFORTUNATE FATE OF THE 

GREEK RITE IN HUNGARY, 

POLAND AND G ALICIA IN 

1205-1342 

A stone on the mountain peak if moved will 

roll down the mountain until it reaches the 

bottom. Such was the fate of the Greek Rite 

faithful, those that were to be helpful to them 

moved away and they began to roll down. The 

same happened in Hungary with the Greek Rite, 

(84) MESZAROS KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 65. 

(85) KATONA S. Op. cit. Vol. IV. p. 735. 

49 



when the Eastern Emperor failed to protect and 
defend them, the Rite began to decline and 
Latinization very cleverly found its way among 
them. This was a political move, to which the 
Popes gave plenty of fuel, especially during the 
time of the advancing Uzmans (Turks). 

The whole of Europe was in fear of invasion of 
Islams viewing a persecution because of their 
Christianity. The youthful European Govern- 
mental life saw in Catholicism and its monar- 
chism the strength to hold Europe strong. This 
invasion of Islam had prepared Europe for the 
coming events. The Pope, aware of the aims and 
preparation of Islam, proposed the idea of 
Crusades, to fight it. Hungary was to be involved 
in the Crusades, and Pope Innocent III urged 
King Imre to step in line with others, but the 
King gave only a promise to this cause. It is 
possible that King Imre foresaw some intrigue 
and decided it would be be better to ignore the 
invitation and remain home lest he observe open 
the door for the local Hierarchy to reserve a 
political leadership. (86) His successor Endre II, 
being a weaker character, did not know how to 
refuse the Pope's continued urging, and joined 
the other Crusaders and went to the Holy Land. 
Before his leaving he deemed it necessary to 
silence the many disorders in the Country. He 
also did not forget about the future of his son 
Kalman, whom the Galicians wanted for their 
King. 

With joy the Pope agreed and understood the 
delay of King Imre II in joining the Crusaders. 
The Galician Rusins promised help to have 
Kalman nominated for their king and promised 
also to make a Union with Rome by accepting the 
Pope's authority. The only stipulation they had 
was to keep their Greek Rite. King Endre II went 
with Kalman to Galicia where Kalman was 
crowned and was also engaged to the daughter of 

(86) MESZAROS KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 65. 

50 



Polish Sovereign. (87) These circumstances had 
a great effect on the Rusins in Hungary, seeing 
that their Galician brothers left them alone in 
joining the Church of Rome, keeping only their 
Rite. Many privileges were lost under pressure 
from the Latin Hierarchy. Even the kings 
remained silent when the Greek Rite Rusin 
monasteries, convents, churches were 
destroyed. 

At a time when the Monarchical system was 
not yet strengthened in their ancestral 
Hungarian Constitution, the people were unable 
and unwilling to understand the interest of the 
Catholic kings and looked at it with suspicion. 

The kings were slowly oppressing the idea of 
freedom, especially the ecclesiastical freedom of 
the Greek Rite in which these people praised God 
in their Old Slovanic language. The Latin 
Hierarchy was excluded, could not interfere in 
the affairs of the Greek Rite Eparchy, which had 
its freedom. As long as they had such freedom, 
the Greek Rite people could remain aloof from 
the stormy time which was foreseen notably by 
the Rusins, but also by Rumanians, Serbians and 
some Hungarians, especially those still pagans. 
The only wish of these people was to be free. 
They were ready to take up arms for the 
freedom, a freedom chained by the Monarchy 
and Catholicism. (88) 

This was the reason why all these nationalities 
rebelled against the kings. They took part in the 
Gyula revolt, the Vatha rebellion, Csak Matyas 
combat, Peto uprising, fighting on the side of 
Zapolya, Bocskai, Bethlen and Rakoczi banner 
up to the fall of Kossuth Lajos. 

Greek Rite Rusins lost their freedom during 
the reign of King Endre II which brought joy and 
pride to the Latin Hierarchy. Still they were 
dubious in their victory and continued their 

(87) KATONA S. Op. cit. Vol. V. p. 214 

(88) MESZAROS KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 71 



51 



work, seeing that the Greek Rite faithful 
abandon their Rite, which they feared could be 
dangerous to them in the future. This can be seen 
in a letter of Pope Gregory IX writing in 1229 to 
his envoy in Egyed, Hungary. (89) This letter 
instructs him to convert all the Greek Rite 
Slovank people to the Latin Rite. Many Greek 
Rite Episcopal Sees, spoken of in old records, 
were simply wiped off the map. Especially the 
Belekeny, Szirmia Sees which not only lost their 
Rite, but even their name. The Pope gave out 
strict orders to the envoys, that the Szirmia 
Greek Rite Bishop be subjected to the Latin Rite 
Bishop, If he is not willing to do so, then he will be 
directed by the Papal authority to accept the 
Latin Rite Bishop's jurisdiction. (90) 

King Bela IV (1235-1270) took over the reins of 
his kingdom in the most troublesome times, 
when Greek Rite monasteries, convents, 
churches were destroyed. When the storm of 
trouble was over, King Bela IV continued his 
work, seeing to it that the Greek Rite could not be 
revived. In 1238 Pope Gregory IX directed King 
Bela IV. to force the Bulgarian King Assanes, 
originally of the Greek Rite, to embrace the 
Latin Rite, now again proposing the Greek Rite, 
to return to the Latin Rite. (91) If it could not be 
accomplished peacefully then it was to be done 
by force. King Bela IV answered that he would 
not fulfill such a directive, as being but only as 
Apostolic representative, not as a servant of 
Rome. Bela and Assanes were brothers-in-law 
and as much as Bela disliked this task, he was 
forced to undertake it in virtue of a pledge he had 
made to his father Endre II in 1234 in the 
presence of Jacob Praenstini, Apostolic envoy, 
that he would force his subjects to obedience to 
Rome and Latin Rite. 



(89) KATONA S. Op. cit. Vol. V. p. 545 

(90) BALUGYANSZKY ANDRAS. Op. cit. p. 315 

(91) BALUGYANSZKY ANDRAS. Op. cit. p. 315 



52 



In 1236 King Bela IV was directed by Rome to 
force the Transylvanian Rumanians to accept 
the Latin Rite Bishop. Here again King Bela IV 
could not fulfill this task on account of the Tartar 
invasions, only after the invasions ceased. The 
Rusins who were the forgotten people by Rome 
became nursed by the Orthodox clergy, 
unknowingly became schismatics, they too had 
to send representatives to Rome concerning the 
Union with Rome. 

THE FATE OF THE RUSINS AND THE 

REBELLION IN UNG AND ZEMPLEN 

COUNTIES, THE COMMON FATE OF THE 

RUSINS AND THE RUMANIANS 

With the death of King Endre III, the last 
member of the family, the Arpad dynasty came 
to an end. The following successors to the throne 
were selfish people seeking only their own 
security, their own benefits instead of working to 
unite, to weld together all nationalities. The 
Papal power in Hungary was very strong, in- 
fluenced by the Germans especially in Church 
matters, Rite and discipline so that other 
nationalities, especially the Rusins felt the op- 
pression of their Rite. (92) 

In Poland hundreds of thousands of Rusins 
were Latinized through the influence of the 
Popes. The Polish Hierarchy by authority 
pressed the Rusins to accept the Latin Rite. 
These movements had an effect upon the Rusins 
in Hungary, especially when the Rusins of 
Poland and Galicia came in contact with them. 
True, their work of Latinization was not suc- 
cessful at once, but year after year the goal was 
slowly realized. This contact of the Rusin people 
could be noticed especially during the reign of 
King Karoly. 

(92) BALUGYANSZKY ANDRAS. Op. cit. p. 315 
BAZILOVITS J. Op. cit. XIV Vol. p. 80 



53 



New laws were brought forth: the clergy dare 
not accept benefice from the laity, not to 
solemnize Serbian marriages, and that the 
clergy marriage according to the Greek Rite be 
checked with strict laws. (93) This was a very 
excellent political calculation, because the 
Greek Rite began to decline in Hungary, an 
effect, which helped the Polish nobility to op- 
press the Greek Rite in Poland. 

This was a political move serving as a cover 
for the Church of Rome to gain its desires, i.e., to 
have the Greek Rite Church join in Union with 
Rome. When Rome saw that the throne of King 
Karrty was secured, Cardinal Genlitis saw to it 
that the Diet was called in Pozsony in 1309. At 
this Diet a resolution was approved forcing the 
king's enemies to obedience and strengthening 
the authority of the Church of Rome. 

From then on the fate of the Rusins in 
Hungary was unbearable. They lost not only 
their political power, but also the independence 
of the Greek Rite Church, the freedom of their 
Rite to use freely the Old Slovanic language as 
the language of the altar, they lost the freedom to 
elect their own bishops, all the authority, power 
of bishops was taken away from them. This 
unfortunate fate fell upon the Rusin Greek Rite 
Church during the reign of King Karoly (1308- 
1342). An agreement was made between the 
Pope and King Karoly in 1317, that in Hungary 
all appointments to Church offices come from 
Rome, and when an Episcopal See became 
vacant, until it received a new bishop, half of the 
benefice of the diocese went to Rome. (94) 

Naturally this arrangement troubled not only 
the Greek Rite, but also the Latin Rite clergy. 
They all opposed it, and began to break up into 
different parties, especially the Oligarch Csak 
Matyas, who in this arrangement with the Pope 

(93) MESZAROS KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 75 

(94) MESZAROS KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 75 

PETERFY. "Conci. Hung." p. 137 

54 



found a lot of oppression. This gave reason for 
more internal trouble. The oppresseo\Greek Rite 
Rusins also had shown their dissatisfaction in 
this matter. In 1320 a grave rebellion broke out in 
the Ung County headed by Peto Peter, the Lord 
Lieutenant of Ung and Zemplen Counties, to 
revenge the oppression of Rusins Peto was also 
in contact with Moscow seeking help in this time 
of need. (95) 

It is a well known fact that Peto's party 
members were all from Ung and Zemplen 
Counties, mostly Greek Rite Rusins, who if their 
Church Rite, rights would have not been of 
concern, would not have taken up arms, in the 
rebellion. In time of need Peto did not get help 
from Moscow, and the Rusins became 
discouraged, did not care to fight. Then came the 
Doge Vajda of Transylvania defeating Peto's 
army. (96) 

In the beginning of this era the rebellious 
Rusins were deprived of their freedom. King 
Nagy Laps who was very faithfully concerned 
with Catholicity, propagated a Union, but 
postponed it until the time he could meet with the 
Emperor. In the meantime King Nagy Lajos sent 
his envoys to Transylvania to urge the Greek 
Rite faithful to unite with Rome. This urging was 
rather an order than simply advice or a goodwill 
suggestion. In summer of 1366 King Nagy Lajos 
gave order to arrest all the Kovar and Kraso 
County Greek Rite clergy, their wives and 
children and to deprive the clergy of their 
position. They were replaced by Latin Rite 
priests from Dalmatia. (97) 

The Greek Rite Rusins in Hungary did not 
receive exactly the same fate, but theirs was 
also very difficult. The Greek Rite Rumanians 

95. MESZAROS KAROLY Op. cit. p. 77 
KATONA S. Op. cit. p. 281 Vol. X. 

96. KATONA S. Op. cit. Vol. VIII. p. 431 

97. HbRVATH ISTVAN. "Magyar Tortenet" 
Vol. II. p. 21 

55 



lost their clergy and if they would not accept the 
Latin Rite clergy would have to take the con- 
sequences of disobeying the order. The Rusins 
and Rumanians fate concerning the Church, Rite 
and politics brought them into a very sorrowful 
state. 

At this point it would be beneficial to bring up 
some historical developments, which united the 
both Churches. Politically the developments 
brought life to them, a life not beneficial to the 
Greek Rite. In the Northeastern section of 
Hungary and in Poland the Rusins were 
struggling for the national freedom during King 
Karoly's reign. Being that the King of Poland 
Kazimir did not have any descendants, King 
Karoly was seeking the Crown of Poland for his 
son Lajos. Knowing well that the Czech King 
could hinder his goal and to overcome misun- 
derstandings, King Karoly worked in a manner 
which brought the Czech King closer to him. 

This was brought about through the 
engagement of his granddaughter Margret to a 
Moravian prince and through an understanding 
with his son John, that after King Kazimir's 
death, he would help him gain the throne of 
Poland, In the year of 1339 King Kazimir was 
successful in persuading the Polish Diet, that 
after his death the throne of Poland should be 
given to a Hungarian king, becoming the King of 
Poland. Politics will always be politics regar- 
dless who or where the political work is done. 
King Nagy Lajos having lawful claims on Poland 
and Lithuania engaged in a war with them, an 
act which brought the Rusins of Galicia and 
Hungary into a closer relation with one another, 
the Rusins of Hungary were vassals of the 
Hungarians, seeking freedom. (98) 

In 1351 King Nagy Lajos brought with himself 
to Hungary Koriatovics Fedor a Lithuanian 
prince as a security to strengthen his holdings in 

98. KATONA S. Op. cit. Vol. X, p. 281 
HORVATH S. Op. cit. Vol. I. p. 55 

56 



Poland, He gave Koriatovics a title "Prince of 
Munkacs" presenting to him estates in Zemplen 
County, an act which brought a mutual un- 
derstanding between them. (99) 

THE LAST RUSIN IMMIGRANT DURING THE 
REIGN OF KING NAGY LAJOS. 
KORIATOVICS FEDOR AND THE GREEK 
RITE CHURCHES DEVELOPMENT 

While King Nagy Lajos although taken up 
with the Northeastern affairs did not lose time in 
securing the affairs of the Church of Rome. This 
was harmful to him because the Southern 
Slovanic people stood fast to their Greek Rite. 
Weapons were necessary to hold them down in 
exercising his rule, but force did not bring 
loyalty to him. 

The constant urging of Pope Innocent VI. 
(1352-1362) forced King Nagy Lajos in 1359 to 
attack Bosznia and Serbia in order to in- 
corporate them into Hungary, but he was 
defeated. The defeated army retreated from 
Serbia and the rebellious people returned again 
to their Greek Rite. 

The over-zealous work of conversion in the 
Latin Rite had its effects also on the different 
nationalities in Hungary, especially on the 
Rumanians, the dwellers of Maramaros County, 
whom Kun Laszlo persecuted, because they 
would not accept the Latin Rite. (100) Bogdan 
Dragos, a leader of Rumanians, re-settled his 
people in Moldavia. King Nagy Lajos attacked 
Bogdan Dragos, who put up a stubborn 
resistance, proving by strength that they cannot 
be subjected. Finally King Nagy Lajos realized 
this and stopped the battle and was satisfied with 
Bogdan 's pledge to live in peace. Three hundred 
villages destroyed by the Rumanians in 

99. KATONA S. Op. cit. Vol. IX, p. 143 
100. MESZAROS KAROLY, Op. cit. p. 81 
Szirmay. Op. cit. p. 251 



57 



Maramaros County became vacant and there 
Koriatovics Fedor re-settled his Rusins. (101) 
In 1365 Koriatovics Fedor was captured in 
Podolia and executed. Koriatovics made some 
order in Church matters, but his sudden death 
did not permit him to accomplish his progressive 
political interests for the Rusins. With the death 
of Koriatovics, the Rusins lost their political 
power and became fiefs in Hungary. Much could 
have been expected of Koriatovics, he was a 
prince, had authority, was also an influenzal 
person, he could have uplifted the Rusin people 
to higher standards. 

Koriatovics knew well that to accomplish his 
goal he must make order in Church life. This 
motive induced him to build a monastery for the 
Basilian Fathers on a mountain in the vicinity of 
Munkacs, in memory of Bishop Nicholas. This 
mountain was re-named, because of the monks* 
monastery, Monks' mountain (Cerneca hora). In 
later years this monastery was reconstructed by 
the Havasvolgyi Vajda Multyanszky Koszta and 
Racz Demetrius. (102) At the same time 
Koriatovics presented the monks with a great 
benefice. The first was the property of the 
villages of Boboviscse and Lauka and the tithes 
attached to these, granting a document of per- 
petual endowment. His pious wife, Dominica, 
also built a convent for the Sisters on the opposite 
mountain, but this convent did not long endure. 
(103) 

Most of the Rusins lived under the Southern 
slopes of the Northeastern Carpathian moun- 
tains, i.e., close to the boundary, where they 
served as soldiers, distinguishing themselves in 
their work. For their good work they were 
exempted from tithes, and also had the right to 

101. MESZAROS KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 82 

102. BAZILOVITS J. Op. Cit. Vol. I. p. 7 
MESZAROS KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 83 
HORVATH S. Op. cit. Vol. II. p. 53 

103. BAZILOVITS J. Op. cit. Vol. I, p. 11 



58 



elect their own civil officials. Many of the given 
privileges were taken away from them from 
time to time, slowly even the documents which 
granted privileges disappeared. After the death 
of Koriatovics, who had no blood descendants, 
the territories which had been presented to him 
by King Nagy Lajos were taken over by the 
Crown. The new possessor of the land did not 
permit the old freedom, but restricted the 
Rusins. (104) 

The king of Poland, Kazimir, died in 1370, and 
on November 15, 1370 Nagy Lajos was crowned 
as the King of Poland. Returning to Hungary, he 
turned over the Munkacs manor to his mother, 
Queen Elizabeth. After the death of Queen Mary, 
the queen's mother transferred the manor to her 
husband King Zsigmond, who in turn, during the 
Turkish conquest, turned it over to Lazarovics 
Istvan, the Serbian Sovereign, and his nephew 
Brankovics Gyorgy. Both had asked for 
protection and shelter from King Zsigmond. 
King Zsigmond attacked the Turks in Serbia, 
defeating them, held on to the forts and in return 
compensated Brankovics Gyorgy with the 
Munkacs, Szolnok, Szalankemeny, Kolpen, 
Becse, Vilagosvar, Tokaj, Regecz, Szerdahely, 
Szatmar, Debreczen, Csiitortokhely, Turi, 
Tiszavarsany manors. This placed the Rusins 
under the despot of Brankovics Gyorgy. 

From this historical event we can explain that 
in Debreczen, Boszbrmeny, Dorog, Kallo, 
Nanas, many Greek Rite people lived, who have 
Racz (Srb- Serb) the adjective, e.g., Racz- 
Boszormeny, Racz -Dorog, Racz- Nanas, etc. 
(105) 

When the Serbian despot Brankovics Gyorgy 
received these manors he had re-settled many 
Serbians there, and they were Hungarianized. 

During the Bocskay religious uprising, they 
lost their national language, but kept their Greek 

104 - TUROCZI, "Hist. Hung", p. 154 

105 - MESZAROS KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 86 

59 



Rite and became subjects of the Munkacs 
Eparchy. During the days of Brankovics, many 
priests came with the Serbian settlers to tend to 
their spiritual needs. Being that the Rusins 
understood the Serbian language and not having 
their own clergy, they slowly began to attend the 
Greek Rite Serbian church services. The con- 
sequences were that they unknowingly became 
separated from the Catholic Church in about 
1390-1400. Since the conversion of the Rusins by 
Cyril and Methodius, they had" their own 
Hierarchy and clergy who had to defend the 
Greek Rite, which day by day was being sup- 
pressed through Latinization. Centuries passed 
since the time of Cyril and Methodius. Their 
clergy one by one died and when they were left 
without a shepherd, they became the forgotten 
people of Rome. The Serbian clergy began to 
care for them and hold them to themselves, thus 
unknowingly they became schismatics and in 
1646 had to reunite with Rome. 

There are no documents about the Greek Rite 
and the religious life of the Rusins in Hungary up 
to 1391. Whatever is said, it is based on 
probability. In 1391 Patriarch Anthony of Con- 
stantinople gave jurisdiction to the Superior of 
the Kortvelyes (Hrusov) monastery, but it 
should be known that the monastery at that time 
was occupied by Rumanians. (106) 

Therefore we can not speak about the schism 
of the Rusins in Hungary. Volosin Augustine also 
states that the Rusins never proclaimed a formal 
schism. U07) 

Yes, we understand that the Latin Rite was 
the State religion, which helped the cause of 
schism among the Rusins, but there was never a 
deep aversion to Rome. (108) Only in the XVIth 
century, when the Bishops and clergy died, no 

106 - MESZAROS KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 87 

107 - DULISKOVICS J. Op. cit. Vol. II. pp. 64-64 

108 - VOLOSIN AUGUSTINE. "Hreko Kat. 
Cerkov v Podkarpatskoj Rusy." N.Y., 1924, p. 
106 

60 



one remained to replace them, and the new 
clergy were of the Serbian Greek Rite, the 
separated assisted them in their spiritual needs 
and thus not knowing it, they fell into schism. 

That the Greek Rite Rusins of Hungary were 
subjects of Rome in the XVIth century, 
historians refer to the last Rusin Bishop in 
Szepes County Bishop Jacob, whose name is 
mentioned in official documents of 1284-1301 
several times. (109) 

An unfortunate episode is described by Dr. 
Nikolai A. Beskid: In 1622 in Poland during the 
reign of King Sigismund (1587-1622) all the an- 
cient documents of the Rusins in Hungary were 
taken from the libraries and archives of Warsaw 
and burnt in public market. (110) 

It also could be assumed that Bishop Jacob 
was a member United with Rome, because his 
nephew John became Bishop of Zagreb, later of 
Kalocsa and finally archbishop of Naples. Ar- 
chbishop John died in 1409. (Ill) King Laszlo II 
on July 31, 1491 refers to the first Bishop John in 
his documents also. (112) 

It is also a known fact that the ungrateful 
Brankovics Gyorgy, who took over the manors in 
Hungary, wanted to protect himself and seeking 
security, he secretly joined Amurath (Turk), 
who conquered Serbia and part of Hungary with 
his victorious army. Hunyadi Janos, a 
Hungarian leader, was defeated through the 
betrayal of Brankovics, captured at Szendro, 
becoming prisoner of war. Hunyadi escaped 
from the despot Brankovics, and took over all the 
Brankovics manors as Boszormeny, Dorog, 
Munkacs, as ransom for the expense of war. 

When Hunyadi died, he left the manors to his 
widow, Horogszegi Szilagyi Erzsebet, in 1456. 

109 - DULISKOVICS J. Op. cit. Vol. II. DD. 37-52 
110 -BESKID A.N.DR. 'Legnvarskij 
Moaastyr". p. 128. 

111 - BESKID A.N.DR. Op, cit. p. 130 

112 - BESKID A.N.DR. Op. cit. p. 130 

61 



She died in 1484. Then in the name of the crown 
King Matyas took over the manors. 

A f ter the death of King Matyas, his son Corvin 
Janus took over the manors, held them until 1495, 
whenUlaszloII. (1490-1516) snatched them away 
from him and gave them to Csaktornyai 
Zsigmond and Erno. About this time the king 
began to notice how cruelly the Rusins were 
were being treated by their landlords, masters, 
both politically and religiously and also by the 
Latin Rite discrediting and destroying the Greek 
Rite and the documents of foundations so the 
Rusins could not claim their rights. In 1458 
Lukacs the monastery superior came to their 
rescue, appealed to King Matyas asking his 
intervention, saying that the benefice which was 
given to them by Koriatovics Fedor the Latin 
Rite clergy were collecting . To this petition King 
Matyas replied with a document, in which he 
upheld the rights of the Rusin Greek Rite clergy 
and had all the benefices transferred in the 
following manor. (113) This document clearly 
states that the property with all its rights belong 
to the Rusin Greek Rite clergy. Still a few years 
later Ivanyi, a Latin Rite priest, when he noticed 
the Greek Rite monks collecting the tithes, 
called his servants together and attacked them, 
deprived them of their rights of collecting. The 
offended monks appealed to King Matyas who in 
1488 sent out his personal envoy, the Captain of 
fort Suda, Raska Bazil, to regain the rights of the 
Greek Rite monks, this he achieved. (114) 

Finally in later years the good Rusin Greek 
Rite people were looking for spiritual solace. As 
long as they understood that the person was 
praising God, they followed him. In their 
desperate situation unknowingly they fell into 
Schism, because those whose duty it was to 
protect them simply forgot about them and they 
went astray. Whom are we to blame for this 
unfortunate situation? The Church? No, the 
individuals in charge. 

U3-HODINKA ANTAL. "Okmanytar". p. 161 
114 - MESZAROS KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 89 

62 



THE RUSINS RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENT 

FROM KING NAGY LAJOS TO KING MATY AS 

(1458-1490) 

King Nagy Lajos, with his enthusiasm for the 
Latin Rite Catholicism and at the request of the 
Latin Hierarchy, began his work which brought 
internal unrest to the Country on account of one- 
sided politics and the ruthless and merciless 
attacks made against the Greek Rite to destroy it 
and replace it with the Latin Rite. The Rumanian 
Greek Rite Church was especially gravely op- 
pressed. Since the Tatar invasions none of the 
kings paid much attention to the Greek Rite 
including King Nagy Lajos. In order to uplift 
these pious Rusins in culture and religion, out of 
charity Laszlo the Palatine built a church for the 
Rusins in 1360 in the city of Munkacs. 

King Nagy Lajos did not care much for the 
Greek Rite, he was forcing Latinization, but 
finally he got tired of constant disorder for 
favoring the Latin Rite and presented Galicia to 
the Hungarian Lords and Polish nobility. All this 
was brought about on account of the disturbing 
unrest of the people. History tells us that as soon 
as Galicia was annexed to Poland, the Rusins 
began to freely practice their Greek Rite. The 
Rusins in Hungary were bitter against the Latin 
Rite for the heavy yoke placed upon them by the 
Latin Hierarchy and simply joined the in- 
dependent Greek Rite Church. (115) 

When the Greek Emperor Paleologos was 
pressed by the Turkish army of Amurathos, he 
turned to Rome for help. In 1439 at the Council of 
Florence the Greek Hierarchy also agreed to 
make a Union under certain conditions. (116) 
The Rusin Greek Rite faithful had their doubts 
about the Union, because for centuries they were 
oppressed by the Latin Rite. They knew full well 
that neither King Nagy Lajos, nor Pope Nicholas 

115 - MESZAROS KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 90 

116 - MESZAROS KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 91 

Decsi A. Op. cit. p. 38 

63 



V would relinquish their hearts' desire of 
destroying the Greek Rite. While the life and 
death battle between the Turks led by Ozman 
and the Hungarians was fought, encouraged by 
Notaras Lukacs, a monk of the Greek Rite, a 
group of Greek Rite monks and faithful again 
broke away from Rome. In the meantime the 
remainder of the Rusins in Hungary remained 
under the protection of the Roman Catholic 
Church. 

King Corvin Matyas gave them religious 
freedom and relieved them from paying tithes. 
King Matyas also gave this privilege to the 
Serbian and Rumanian Greek Rite faithful. The 
reason for his generosity sprang from the 
following facts, that 50,000 Serbian (Racz) were 
settled in Hungary. King Matyas was bitter 
against the Latin Rite Hierarchy; fearing for his 
kingdom's power, he was striving to relieve it 
from the guardianship of the Latin Rite Church. 
He was born of Rumanian parents in Moldavia 
who were of the Greek Rite and this drew him to 
the Greek Rite. Political interests demanded 
him to nurse the Greek Rite and defend the 
people. Another reason for defending the Greek 
Rite was the fact that he was many times fooled 
by Rome, e.g. Rome appointed Bishops in 
Hungary without his knowledge and consent. 
King Matyas in his letter acknowledges his 
willingness to accept the Greek Rite instead of 
tolerating the Papal interference in his kingly 
rights. (117) 

The King's incomparable love for justice, his 
feeling shown towards the other nationalities and 
their religious beliefs, had a great effect upon his 
people. This is specially true in relation to those 
who were chained serfs. They were assured of 
freedom and protection from the Oligarchs. The 
Rusins did suffer from such an oppression, not 
only being serfs, but were afso detested because 
of the Greek Rite, which had lost respect through 
the work of these powerful Oligarchs. 

117 - MESZAROS KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 91 

64 



In this period the Greek Rite was so 
humiliated, that the Rumanian Greek Rite 
clergy were made simple serfs - feifs, forced to 
do manual labor for the Master of the territory. 
The Rusin Greek Rite clergy also found them- 
selves of the same fate, living in the territory of 
one of the most powerful Oligarchs - Masters. 
The Patriarch of Gyulafejervar could not any 
longer tolerate this slavery of the clergy 
especially in Maramaros County. (118) He 
petitioned King Matyas to liberate the clergy 
from their slavery, place them on the same level 
as the Latin Rite clergy who were not slaves, but 
free men. In reply King Matyas gave an order to 
the authorities concerned to free the Greek Rite 
cleregy from slavery. King Matyas up to the 
present day is remembered by a slogan: Matyas 
died so did justice. (Meghalt Matyas oda az 
igazsag.) 

THE CONDITIONS OF THE RUSINS AFTER 
THE DEATH OF KING MATYAS 
(1479-1650) 

The first historically known bishop of the 
Rusins in Hungary was Bishop John (Janos) in 
Munkacs and his successor was Laszlo, who was 
appointed a bishop by Ferdinand I in 1557. The 
next Bishop Hilary was under the patronage of 
Izabella, the widow of Zapolya Janos in 1561 
Bishop Hilary received the right to nominate his 
successor from a Sovereign Janos II freeing him 
from the jus patronatus of Izabella (119) 

The law was changed by Emperor 
Maximillian who retained his right to 
nomination. This intention was to stop the ex- 
tortions of a certain archpriest, commited 
against the local monastery of Munkacs with the 
officer of the manor. The fifth bishop was Laszlo 
II 1597 whose episcopal authority and benefice 

118-HEFELE J. K. "Kat. Egyhaztortenet" 

Vol. II. p. 17 

119 - MESZAROS KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 92 

65 



depended on the Austrian Sovereign, especially 
on Rudolph II. Bishop Laszlo II was seeking help 
from Prince Matyas, who was Governor of 
Transylvania, (120) 

The sixth Bishop was Sergius, who paid 
allegiance to both Austrian and Hungarian 
sovereigns. During this period the war between 
Rudolph II and Bocskay, a war of violence, 
thievery and destruction, forced Bishop Sergius 
to seek protection for the Church. Since in this 
period the clergy represented Rusin affairs they 
had contact with both leaders,i.e. the fate of the 
Rusins always depended on the victor. 

The successor of Bishop Sergius was 
Petronius 1623 and Gregorovics Janos II 1634 
Bishop of Munkacs, (121) both were subjects to 
the feudal Lord Bethlen Gabor. Their successor 
was the renowned hard worker for Union with 
Rome Taraszovics Basil 1634-1648. He was one of 
the highly educated monks and was nominated 
for the Episcopal See, and recommended by 
Bishop Gregorovics Janos. When Taraszovics 
Basil presented himself to the people and the 
feudal Lord Rakoczi Gyorgy, his appearance, 
manner and conversation completely won them 
over. In 1634 he was chosen Bishop by the Lord 
Rakoczy Gyorgy which was according to the 
wish of his predecessor Gregorovics. As soon as 
he was installed, he began to make order in the 
Eparchy making canonical visitations. He also 
held a Synod in Kiralytelek, Szabolcs County, 
and appointed Martinus Janos as an archdean. 
He returned to Munkacs and became friends 
with the fort Captain Balling Janos. The two 
were introduced by Rakoczi. This friendship was 
to have a disastrous effect on Taraszovics's 
whole life. (122) 

In this period the influence of the Catholic 
Church reached its height. But now 
Protestantism was being nurtured by Rakoczi 

120 - BAZILOVITS J. Op. cit. Vol. II. p. 32 

121 - MESZAROS KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 100 

122 - MESZAROS KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 100 

66 



Gyorgy, and Catholicism waning, protected by 
the Hierarchy and Ferdinand II ( 1619-1637), the 
champion. For his favor the Pope promised 
Ferdinand protection, also favoring him with 
great amounts of money. From the Protestant 
side, Rakoczi Gyorgy contacted the German 
Protestant rulers during the time of friction 
between Hungary and Austria. These two powers 
were simulating a religious conflict, but in truth 
their reason was to divide private interests 
under the guise of religion. Ferdinand II was 
trying to stop the spread of Protestantism and 
Rakoczi Gyorgy was working hard to weaken 
Catholicism. 

Balling, Captain of the Munkars fort, through 
his friendship with Taraszovics Basil was trying 
to inf iiience Taraszovics not to unite with Rome, 
but remain a schismatic. The true aim of Balling 
was to get Taraszovics to embrace Protestan- 
tism, hoping that the whole Country would follow 
him into Protestantism, (123) Finally, Balling 
seeing how deeply the Rusin people were at- 
tached to their religion and especially the Rite, 
decided that it would be a gain to hold back 
Taraszovics from Rome, and would further 
weaken Catholicism. The Episcopal Seat of the 
Greek Rite was in Munkacs in the domain of 
Rakoczi Gyorgy, who was a protector, patron of 
the Eparchy, to whom Taraszovics was expected 
to be thankful for his goodwill. Finally they 
succeeded and induced Taraszovics to break the 
ties with Rome, regardless of Papal persuasion. 
Spiritually, Taraszovics still favored Rome, and 
soon he expressed his sorrow for breaking with 
Rome and retracting the break, clearing himself 
with Catholic clergy. In 1640 Taraszovics went 
secretly to Archbishop Lippay, who was in 
contact with the Bishop of Eger, to talk about a 
Union. (124) This meeting took place in Jaszo. 
Balling in the meantime followed the activities 

123. MESZAROS, KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 101 

124. MESZAROS, KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 101 

67 



and behaviour of Taraszovics, and seeing him 
sad and restless became suspicious. He soon 
found out about Taraszovics' intentions from his 
spies. He notified Rakoczi, the ruler, that 
Taraszovics secretly betrayed Protestantism, in 
becoming Catholic and supporting Ferdinand II. 
On December 13th of the same year most 
probably Rakoczi advised Balling to arrest 
Taraszovics. Balling in turn sent lieutenant Joe 
Mihaly with soldiers to arrest him. Taraszovics 
at the time of arrest was celebrating the Divine 
Liturgy in the monastery church. The soldiers 
came to the altar and dragged Taraszovics from 
it, taking him to the fort, where he became a 
prisoner under strict surveillance, and all his 
possessions were confiscated. (125) 

When the Vicar General of Eger found out 
about the arrest, he made this remark: "It is 
unheard of in Hungary to treat a clergyman in 
such a deplorable w^y." The reaction of the 
Catholics placed Rakoczi into a very unfavorable 
position throughout Europe. Because of his 
prestige and politics, he ordered Captain Balling 
to free Bishop Taraszovics from prison under 
certain conditions. (126) 

1. The Bishop will recognize Rakoczi as his 
only patron and will not go against his will. 

2. The Bishop will not contact the Rusins in 
Poland. 

3. The Bishop will not demand, nor take any 
donations from the people. 

4. The Bishop will not fight the officials of the 
Munkacs territory. 

5. The Bishop will not accept benefice until a 
verdict is reached in Court. 

6. The Bishop will submit himself to the 
Prince of Transylvania and ask for pardon. 

125. MESZAROS, KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 102 
HODINKA, ANTAL. "Okmanytar" pp. 74- 

111 

126. BAZILOVITS, J. Op. cit. Vol. I, pp. 65-66 
BOYSAK, BASIL. "The Fate of the Holy 

Union" p. 30 



Bishop Taraszovics signed the above 
demands, was released in the summer of 1641. 
(127) 

After his release from prison Bishop 
Taraszovics contacted the Papal Nuncio in 
Vienna, expressing the intention of visiting and 
asked an audience in December 1641, (128) 

Captain Balling learned about Taraszovics' 
plans and under a pretext of violating his signed 
promises, arrested him a second time. Bishop 
Taraszovics was in prison for about two months, 
and the District Court deprived him of his 
episcopal See of Munkacs, confiscating all his 
possessions and expelling him from the territory 
of Rakoczi. 

Shortly after Bishop Taraszovics went to see 
the Papal Nuncio in Vienna. In his letter of April 
5, 1642, the Nuncio notified Rome of Bishop 
Taraszovics' desire to become Catholic. (129) 

The Sacred Congregation of the Propagation 
of Faith replied: 

1. The episcopal consecration of Taraszovics 
is valid. 

2. The Bishop is to make the" Profession of 
Faith according to the form sent to the Nuncio 

from Rome. 

3. The bishop does not have to come to Rome, 
he is to return to Munkacs and try to convert all 
to the Catholic Faith. 

4. Concerning material assistance, the 
Congregation reminded the Nuncio that they 
have money only for missions and education of 
seminarians. 

In May of 1642 Bishop Taraszovics placed in 
the hands of Archbishop Lippay a Profession of 
the Catholic Faith made in the Imperial Chapel 
in the presence of the Imperial family. 

127. BOYSAK, BASIL. Op. Cit. p. 31 
HODINKA, ANTAL. Op. cit. pp. 105-112 

128. BOYSAK, BASIL. "Ecumenism and Manuel 
M. Olsavsky". p. 22 

129. BOYSAK, BASIL. Op. cit. p. 31 "The Fate of 
the Holy Union." 

69 



Then Emperor Ferdinand III (1637-1657) took 
Bishop Taraszovics under his protection, 
promising him the approval of all his privileges 
and possessions and to defend him. ( 130) Bishop 
Taraszovics received two hundred florins as a 
yearly income and resided at KallS, where he 
lived in 1651. 

The failure of Bishop Taraszovics did not 
bring sad days for the Greek Rite Rusin people 
and their Church. Rakoczi himself tried ear- 
nestly with his sympathetic attitude to gain 
sympathy of the Rusin people. After his death, in 
1648 his widow Lorantfi Zsuzsanna followed in 
his foot steps. In the meantime the Greek Rite 
Clergy were working hard for a Union with 
Rome. They saw the loss of the Greek Rite, its 
humiliation and how it lost its protector. 
Humanly speaking, it is doubtful that they would 
have made Union with Rome had they foreseen 
the future and difficult times that lay ahead. 
(131) 

Prince Rakoczi, to prove a point, on May 6, 
1643 appointed Jusko Janos as Bishop of 
Munkacs. A war broke out between the Emperor 
and Rakoczi, whose soldiers conquered the 
Northern part of Hungary as far as Kallo, took 
Taraszovics prisoner and brought him back to 
Munkacs in chains. Bishop Taraszovics had no 
choice, face death in prison or make way for 
bishop-elect Jusko. Many of the Rusin clergy 
visited him in prison and described the pitiful 
situation of the Eparchy and hearing their 
discouraging reports, Taraszovics took the only 
possible course of action open to him and in order 
to save the Rusins returned again to schism. 
(132) Jusko Janos was removed from his office 
and Bishop Taraszovics was reinstated in the 
Munkacs See. 

130. HODINKA, ANTAL "Okmanytar" pp. 136- 
137-143-145 

131. BOYSAK, BASIL. Op. cit. p. 32 

132. MESZAROS KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 103. 

70 



Bishop Taraszovics always dreamt about a 
Union with Rome, realizing that he could not 
secure this success. But Bishop Taraszovics did 
live to see the solemn act of reunion in Ungvar in 
1646, and his influence made it possible that 
Parthenus, who was a real champion of Union, 
succeeded him. The dream of Taraszovics was 
fulfilled. Rakoczi Gyorgy in 1648 and Captain 
Balling became a persona non grata with the 
new Lord. (133) 

THE GREEK RITE CHURCH 

IN HUNGARY 
AND THE UNION WITH ROME 

The history of the Rusin people immediately, 
following the Union of Ungvar (1646) is mostly 
concerned with the Church. This turns to be a 
political interest rather than a religious or racial 
one. Constant complaints, constant seeking to 
remedy the abuses, and still the Rusins adapted 
themselves to the circumstances. The period of 
Union had a purely religious color, but if we 
consider the circumstances and look into the 
matter, we will notice the political desires which 
are under the guise of religion. 

The Union with Rome began with Taraszovics 
who was imprisoned. Here it would be proper to 
mention that while Bishop Taraszovics was in 
prison, two illegal bishops took his place. The 
first one was Porphyrius Ardan (1640-1643), the 
other one was Sophronius Juszko, very little is 
known about them, and there are no documents 
of their origin, activities or episcopal See. 
Sophronius Juszko governed the Church of the 
Rusins for a very short time, because in 1643 
(134) through the intercession of the Austrian 
Emperor, Bishop Taraszovics was freed from 

133. BALUGYANSZKY ANDRAS. Op. cit. p. 481 

MESZAROS KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 113 

134. HODINKA ANTAL. Op. cit. p. 112 

71 



prison under condition, that he would give up his 
authority as a Bishop. The failure of Bishop 
Taraszovics, was considered the failure of the 
clergy and the people. They were persecuted as 
they were in the past. The relationship between 
the landlord and the people was not pleasant, and 
the people's burden began to be heavier daily. 
The Rusin clergy were not even considered 
priests, and the landlord during their work on 
obligation days, whipped them to work harder. 
These people were on the edge of despair, ready 
to give up their faith to save themselves from the 
so miserable circumstances. 

Conditions in Roland made their cir- 
cumstances more burdensome. The antipathy 
between Poland and Russia had its effects upon 
the Rusins in Hungary. The Poles began to 
persecute the Rusins out of hatred, wishing to 
enslave and dictate to them. This attitude began 
to spread in Hungary also. The Rusins became a 
suspicious element in the Country, being 
suspected that they were members of the Em- 
peror's Party in the revolution. So, the Rusins 
were oppressed from both sides and the poor 
people did not know the cause of their un- 
fortunate conditions. 

The clergy took these unfortunate conditions 
to. heart and strived to remedy them through a 
Union with Rome. Petrovics Parthenius and 
Korniczky both Archpriests,, decided to see 
Bishop Jakusics of Eger and to seek help. Their 
petition was that Bishop Jakusics call the Greek 
Rite clergy for a meeting concerning the Union 
with Rome. Bishop Jakusics thought over the 
idea, consented to it by calling the Greek Rite 
clergy to meet in Ungvar in 1646, Sixty three 
clergymen were present, at the meeting, of 
which Bishop Jakusics was chairman, and 
matters were discussed concerning the 
obligations springing from acceptance of the 
Pope and his successors as the Visible Head of 
the Church, and becoming the subjects to the 
Pope, made the Profession of Faith and signed. 

72 



«i.v;t«s 



\» - ; W. 




Bishop Theodore G. Rorazsa 
191 JL - 1944 



72a 



^1 

a 1 




FORT OF UNGVAR, WHERE THE UNION WITH ROME WAS MADE APRIL 24,1646 



■■ 



The following conditions for Union were 
formulated: 

1. To keep the Greek Rite in their churches. 

2. That they elect their own bishops, Pope to 
approve the elected. 

3. That they may exercise their, particular 
discipline, rights and privileges. (135) 

The minutes of the above meeting were 
presented to the Archbishop Lippay of Esz- 
tergom for his approval and to be sent to Rome. 
They asked that Petrovics Parthenius, their 
leader for the Union, be approved as a Bishop, 
400 clergymen unanimously elected Parthenius a 
Bishop, who had been recommended by 
Taraszovics, This was sent to Pope Innocent X. 
(1644-1655) for his approval. (136. 

THE UNION DOCUMENT OF UNGVAR 
1646 - 1655 

1. THE RUSINS of Pod-Carpathia and 
Eastern Slovensko, before the XVIIth century, 
belonged to the Greek non-united religion. In the 
mentioned century, however, THEY 
GRADUALLY COMMENCED TO UNITE WITH 
THE HOLY ROMAN SEE (A,D. 1646, 1652, 1664, 
etc.) (123) 

2. According to acceptable data, THE FIRST 
UNION WITH THE CHURCH OF ROME OC- 
CURRED ON APRIL 24, 1646, when 63 non- 
united priests from the provinces of the present 
Eastern Slovensko and Western Podkarpatia 
appeared at UNGVAR (Uzhorod), and in the 
chapel of the Fort placed solemn vows of 
obedience into the hands of Jakusics, the Roman 
Catholic Bishop of Eger. AT THAT TIME THEY 
PLACED NOTHING IN WRITING OF THIS. 

135. MESZAROS KAROLY. Op. cit p.. ltt 

136. MESZAROS KAROLY. Op. Cit. p. 114 
123. HODINKA ANTAL. "A Munkacsi Gorog 

Katholikus Puspokseg Tortenete" Budapest 
1909. pp. 295, 319, 543, 565. Okmanytar: Nos. 113, 
159. 



73 



THE FACT OF THE UNION HAPPENED 
ORALLY. (124) 

3. In 1648 the clergy following their ancient 
custom, after the death of Taraszovics Bazil, 
elected PARTHENIUS PETER a religious of the 
Order of St. Basil the Great, who, in September 
of that year, with a number of his clergy, AP- 
PEARED AT TRNAVA Nagy Szombat, (now 
Western Slovensko) where the Hungarian 
Roman Catholic clergy was holding A 
NATIONAL SYNOD. At this Synod Bishop-elect 
Parthenius announced that he and all the priests 
who elected Mm, likewise, the faithful under 
their care, had decided to unite with Rome and 
requested the National Synod to 

A. Accept them as Uniates; 

B. Acknowledge Peter Parthenius as their 
Bishop, and; 

C. Recommend them to the good will of the 
King. 

OF THIS ANNOUNCEMENT, PROMISE 
AND REQUEST, THERE, DIRECTLY 
REMAINED NO WRITTEN DOCUMENT, but 
from a later document (Jan. 4, 1660), we know 
that the Synod received the announcement of the 
Union with joy, and gladly received the Uniates 
and ENTRUSTED GEORGE P. LIPPAY, 
PRINCE-PRIMATE OF HUNGARY, WITH 
THE TASK OF PROCURING CONFIRMATION 
OF PETER PARTHENIUS both at the HOLY 
SEE AND THE KING. (125) TO ABSOLVE 
PARTHENIUS AND ACKNOWLEDGE HIM AS 
THE BISHOP OF MUNKACS. This is the con- 
dition for the return of the priests, otherwise the 
whole union would fail. At the end of his letter, 
Primate Lippay states that' the consecrating 
bishop explained incorrectly that he (Lippay), 
by appointing Parthenius Visitor, sanctioned his 
episcopal election. Although they discussed the 

124. HODINKA ANTAL. Op. cit. p. 297. Ok- 
manyta*r Nos. 117, 122, 125. 

125. HODINKA ANTAL. Op. cit. 00. 308, 309, 
336-337. Okmanytar. Nos. 117, 141. 

74 



first and second communication, NO ANSWER 
WAS RECEIVED FROM ROME REGARDING 
THEM. 

5. In the meanwhile, PETER PARTHENIUS, 
bishop-elect, in THE BEGINNING OF YEAR 
1652, CALLED THE CLERGY TO A MEETING, 
AT WHICH A PETITION TO POPE INNOCENT 
X. DATED JANUARY 15, WAS WRITTEN. 
THIS WRITING IS THE FAMOUS UNION 
DOCUMENT. Its original text was in Ruthenian, 
but that has been lost and may be found only in 
the Latin text which was sent to the Chapter of 
Pozsony, February 15, 1665. This document is 
compiled in a peculiar way. Six Archdeacons, 
describing therein the first meeting of the 63 
priests in 1646, signed it. But in the front they 
placed the names of all who afterward signed the 
union. This catalogue, however, also was lost. 
Within all probability, the union of the second 
part of the clergy occurred then ( in 1652) and this 
in such a way that these priests (who perhaps 
numbered 400) simply attached their signature 
to the document formed at the meeting of 1646 
and thus they acquiesced to the profession of 
faith made in 1646 and the three conditions ap- 
pearing therein. It is significant that this 
document discloses the clergy and their letter 
with the request that Peter Parthenius be con- 
firmed as a bishop. IN THE WRITING OF THIS 
DOCUMENT, THEREFORE, THE CHIEF AIM 
WAS NOT TO REPORT THE UNION TO ROME 
(LIPPAY had already done this). BUT PETER 
PARTHENIUS, ELECTED BISHOP, 
GATHERED THE CLERGY TO A MEETING 
IN 1652 AND HAD THE PETITION DATED, 
JANUARY 15, WRITTEN THAT ROME 
ACKNOWLEDGE THE .BISHOPRIC OF 
MUNKACS AS A REGULAR CANONICAL 
BISHOPRIC AND PARTHENIUS AS A 
REGULAR DIOCESAN BISHOP. THIS "UNION 
DOCUMENT" IS BUT ONE EXHIBIT IN THE 



75 



PROCESS OF THIS QUESTION. (126) 

4. PRIMATE LIPPAY WAS WELL AWARE 
THAT THE UNION SHOULD BE REPORTED 
TO ROME and likewise, the plea of the priests, 
that PETER PARTHENIUS BE CONFIRMED 
BY THE POPE, should be fulfilled. This fact, 
however, expressly contained this, that Rome 
sanction the right of the Ruthenian priests to 
elect their bishop and hereby, implicitly, 
acknowledge the bishopric of Munkacs. Primate 
Lippay, likewise, knew that this latter question is 
the most delicate, for if this were accomplished 
the rest would naturally follow. He therefore, 
commenced his action here. Quite late, it is true, 
for HE WROTE TO THE POPE, but on July 23, 
1651. In this communication he does not even 
mention the name of Parthenius, but referred 
that in the territories of the Roman Catholic 
Diocese of ESZTERGOM and Eger schismatic 
Ruthenians live in large numbers, of whom 
many -- both priests and faithful -- have alredy 
promised obedience to the Roman Catholic 
Church, further 400 more priests, desiring union 
petitioned him, but announced this would be 
possible only if the Holy Father were to establish 
a Greek Catholic Bishopric for them. He, 
therefore, asks the Holy Father to do this. TO 
THIS COMMUNICATION THERE CAME NO 
ANSWER FROM ROME. Primate Lippay then, 
of his own accord, appointed on September the 
fifth, Peter Parthenius Visitator of the 
Hungarian Ruthenians and on September tenth, 
ONCE MORE HE WROTE TO THE POPE 
announcing that he had already written to the 
Holy Father regarding the Union of schismatic 
Ruthenians and requested a separate Bishop for 
them. 

In the meanwhile the priests united, or 
already on the way to union, without his 

126. HODINKA ANTAL. Op. cit. p. pp. 338- 
340. Okmanytar. Nos. 116, 118, 119, 120, 121, 123. 



76 



Idrowledge, will and consent, elected Parthenius 
a Basilian monk, and with the greatest of haste, 
had him consecrated by a schismatic bishop, 
with the assistance of two other schismatic 
bishops. Therefore, according to the method 
demanded by the Greek Church to the title of the 
bishopric of Munkacs. This action, naturally, 
was a faulty one that would only be reminded by 
the Pope. FOR THIS REASON, HE ASKS THE 
POPE TO DO THAT. 

6. PRIMATE LIPPAY DID NOT SEND THIS 
DOCUMENT, DATED JANUARY 15, 1652 TO 
ROME (according to the testimony of the files at 
the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of 
the faith; this happened ONLY IN DECEMBER 
17, 1711), but on July 19, 1652, he sent a new 
communication to Rome, not directly to the 
Pope, but to the Sacred Congregation for the 
Propagation of the Faith knowing that His 
Holiness transferred this matter there and asked 
for the confirmation of the elected, but 
irregularly consecrated Bishop Peter Par- 
thenius. The Sacred Congregation requested full 
information regarding the matter. Primate 
Lippay sent his information to the Sacred 
Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith on 
July 2, 1654, whereas on November 16 of that 
year the matter was transferred to the SACRED 
CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE as 
the competent forum for absolution from 
irregularities . Upon recommendation of the 
Sacred Congregation, the Pope on May 13, 1655, 
gave Primate Lippay of Esztergom permission 
to confirm Peter Parthenius in spite of the fact 
that he was irregularly consecrated. The Papal 
"breve" regarding this was issued June 8, 1655, 
where permission was granted Parthenius to 
freely exercise the rights of bishop, both of order 
and jurisdiction, over the Ruthenians of entire 
Hungary. Upon receipt of this, Primate Lippay, 
in a solemn announcement to the united clergy 
issued July 12, 1655, absolved Bishop Parthenius, 
proclaimed him to be a true, lawful bishop 
confirmed by the Pope and finally gave him 

77 



jurisdiction over all the Ruthenians in Hungary, 
(127) 

7. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS EVIDENT, 
THAT PRIMATE LIPPAY HAD AC- 
COMPLISHED ONE REQUEST OF THE 
UNITED RUTHENIAN PRIESTS TENDERED 
AT THE NATIONAL SYNOD OF TRNAVA, FOR 
THEY HAD A BISHOP CONFIRMED BY THE 
POPE. THE CONFIRMATION OF PAR- 
THENIUS PETER, HOWEVER, DID NOT 
MEAN THE RATIFICATION OF THE RIGHT 
OF THE CLERGY TO ELECT THEIR BISHOP, 
NOR THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE 
BISHOPRIC OF MUNKACS AS SUCH. THE 
RUTHENIAN CLERGY WAS INFORMED OF 
THIS ONLY IN 1715 AND THIS IS THE CAUSE 
OF THEIR SECOND PETITION. (128) 

8. Primate Lippay, likewise, fulfilled another 
desire of the Ruthenian clergy expressed at 
Trnava, namely that of recommending Par- 
thenius Peter to the King. This was eventually 
accomplished. That petition, of the Ruthenian 
clergy was granted when King Leopold I. IN HIS 
ROYAL DIPLOMAS, PROMULGATED ON 
OCTOBER 23, AND NOVEMBER 10, 1659, 
APPOINTED PARTHENIUS PETER AS 
BISHOP, and simultaneously emphatically 
announced that his regal powers of Patronage, 
that were also exercised by his predecessors. 
This, says King Leopold I., was done SINCE 
THE TIME OF ST. STEPHEN, whose right of 
patronage and providing bishops for Catholic 
Sees exclusively, doubtlessly belonged to the 
King and Crown of Hungary. After the 
promulgation of these royal diplomas, Primate 
Lippay also issued a Solemn public decree on 
January 4, 1660 in which he proclaimed Par- 
thenius Peter as a lawful bishop of Munkacs 
appointed by the King. (129) 

127. HODINKA ANTAL. Op. cit. pp. 341-350. 
Okmanytar Nos. 124-126-127, 130, 131, 134.. 

128. HODINKA ANTAL. Op. cit. p. 350. 

129. HODINKA ANTAL. Op. cit. p. 350, 360. Ok- 
manytar:. Nos. 138, 147 

78 



9. The Ruthenian clergy ana laity united with 
Rome from 1665 did not disturb the so-called 
"Union document", They did not do this chiefly 
because of the secular benefits asked by them, 
namely: privileges, liberties, immunities and 
exemptions, assured by the Primate on May 14, 
1648, were granted not only by some Lords, but 
the United Greek Catholic clergy on August 16, 
1692 received from King Leopold I. himself a 
letter of privilege which justly may be called the 
"MAGNA CHARTA" of the Ruthenian United 
Greek Catholic Clergy. (130) 

10. The question of the Union document 
appeared in 1712. Then Charles III, became King 
and he, following the footsteps of his 
predecessor, desired to appoint as Apostolic 
Vicar Michael Hodermarsky, who was elected 
by the clergy, but whom the Holy Roman See 
was under no consideration willing to accept. 
Charles III. to prove his truth on May 6, 1712 
writes to the Pope saying that the Ruthenian 
clergy most recently found documents relative 
to the episcopal nomination of Parthenius. It can 
be gathered from these documents (notes 
Charles III.) that the Ruthenian clergy at the 
time of the Union reserved for itself the free 
right to elect their bishop, and again, that in 1652 
Pope Innocent X. confirmed Parthenius who was 
elected by the clergy and he (Parthenius) - it can 
be proved - used the title of the Bishop of 
Munkacs and acted as such. (131) 

11. The clergy started action simultaneously 
with the King and in the month of December, 
1712 gathered at a Synod in Munkacs, from 
where they sent petitions, one to the Pope 
himself, and two to the Prince Primate, in which 
they announce, that they understand with sur- 
prise the fact that the Bishopric of Munkacs is 

130. HODINKA ANTAL. Op. cit. p. 326-327. Ok- 
manytar, Nos. 113, 129, 220, 268, 456. 

131. HODINKA ANTAL. Op. cit. p. 481. Ok- 
manytar. No. 453. 

79 



not canonized and for this reason Hodermarsky, 
elected by -them-cannot~ he-named bishop They 
note, however, that their schismatic bishops 
were for a century and half consecrated to this 
title, and besides, their predecessors in 1652, 
reserved for themselves the right to have 
bishops elected by them and confirmed by the 
Holy Apostolic See - for this reason, they ask the 
Pope to recognize their bishopric and confirm 
Hodermarsky. 

They ask the Primate and the Sacred 
Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith to 
intercede for them before the Pope. The Prince 
Primate, on February 15, 1713, informed the 
clergy that he sent the petition, with his 
recommendation to Rome, and asks them to 
await decision. To this petition no direct answer 
came from Rome, but it was several times an- 
nounced that Hodermarsky, elected by the 
clergy, shall never be confirmed by Rome. (132) 

12. One of the most important occasions in 
the history of the Ruthenian Greek Catholic 
clergy was the Synod of priests held on March 7, 
1715 in the Basilian monastery of Munkacs. All 
the priests of the bishopric came to this con- 
ference, just as they had done on January 15, 
1652. At this conference they formed three 
petitions, the first of which was sent to the Holy 
Father, the second to the Congregation for the 
Propagation of the Faith, and the third to the 
Prince Primate, In these petitions the clergy 
openly referred to the conditions appearing in 
the "Union document" of 1652. In the notable 
third article of their petitions ( the one sent to the 
Pope and to the Congregation for the 
Propagation of the Faith), they expressed 
themselves as follows: Since Prince Theodore 
Koriatovics about 300 years ago endowed, and 
the Hungarian Kings ratified, the bishopric of 

132. HODINKA ANTAL. Okmanytar: Nos. 460, 
462. 463, 465. 466, 467, 469, 470, 472, 473. 475. Op. 
cit. pp. 504-508. 

80 



Munkacs, what His Majesty throughout the 
lengthy controversy between himself and the 
Holy Apostolic See amply proved by sufficient 
evidence and we also are ready to prove, we 
strenuously cling to the election and the ap- 
pointment of the one elected by His Majesty, and 
with the consent of all, announce that neither in 
the present, nor future, shall we together with 
our successors, accept and allow an Apostolic 
Vicar to be sent to us, being satisfied, in the 
future, with the bishop elected, or to be elected, 
by us, from whom we solely demand that he 
hurry not to receive consecration as soon as 
possible. (133) 

13. The Prince Primate upon this request, on 
March 27, 1715 sent a letter to the clergy, in 
which he asks, that a few of them, who are 
familiar with the five articles of the Synod, come 
to him to Pozony before Easter and bring with 
them the documents: 

l--regarding the "Union". 

2-the establishment of the bishopric of 
Munkacs and 

3-the other privileges, so that they may in- 
form him, and he Rome. 

Irreparable fault then happened. The clergy 
ignored the call. If ever then was the first and 
last opportunity to assure their rights of electing 
their own bishop. Not one priest appeared at the 
Prince Primates palace and the petition adopted 
by the Synod was transmitted to Rome as 
received. (134) 

14. The Sacred Congregation for the 
Propagation of the Faith discussed the petition of 
the clergy on May 7, 1715. The referept was 
Cardinal Albani. The procedure was as follows: 
The King of Hungary clings to the appointment 
of the bishop, the clergy to election; but these 
two desires presume the existence of the 

133. HODINKA ANTAL. Op. cit. 504-508. 

134. HODINKA ANTAL. Op. cit. pp. 503-508. Ok- 
manytar. p. KIV. 

81 



bishopric. How does the question stand? 
Hodermarsky, bishop-elect, on December 17, 
1711 sent a letter about the Union dated lo52. In 
this it was stated that the clergy elected Par- 
thenius bishop and asked the Holy See to confirm 
him. The Sacred Congregation, since the clergy 
immediately had him consecrated, answered at 
that time: "If the Pope deems it fit, he may later 
confirm him". The Sacred Congregation, 
hearing and understanding this, at one of its 
former sessions, decided: this confirmation does 
not reveal the fact that the Church in Munkacs 
has become a legally-instituted Cathedral 
Church, or, still less that the absolved mentioned 
church is endowed with income and other means 
of sustenance, that are necessary for the 
establishment of a Cathedral Church. There is, 
therefore, no place for the appointment for the 
King, let the Pope send an Apostolic Vicar. This 
Congregation, however, announced that a search 
be made in the files of the Sacred Congregation 
of the Holy Office, whether there is any 
document there regarding this from the years 
1651-1654. Among the documents they found BUT 
ONE, of May 13, 1655, by virtue of which Par- 
thenius was absolved from the censure incurred 
by being irregularly consecrated. In addition the 
Primate sent two letters, but they only prove 
that Parthenius was absolved, confirmed not as 
Bishop of Munkacs, but as bishop residing in 
Munkacs, (as bishop) of the Greek Catholic 
Kuthenian inhabitants of Munkacs and other 
places in Hungary. Such a bishopric did not exist 
and was never established as can be proven by 
the memorandum of the Primate of 1655. Upon 
the basis of these the referent expressly declared 
that this bishopric exists only "in the air", it only 
has the name which was given by the 
schismatics a fact acknowledged in 1708 by the 
priests themselves, and as the Primate then 
wrote, saying, that the bishop did not have the 
title of Episcopal See of Munkacs, but was only 
styled as such. As a result, neither the royal 

82 



appointment may be proved, nor the right of the 
priests to elect, admitted. (135) 

15. After this explanation the Sacred 
Congregation announced that both the Prefect of 
the Propaganda and the Secretary of State write 
to the Nuncio of Vienna to: 

A. seek a person suitable for the Apostolic 
Vicariate. 

B. inform His Majesty that this person may 
not be Hodermarsky who was elected by the 
clergy, and 

C. ask the support of the Primate of his own 
accord, on June 6, 1715, turn to the King with a 
petition that he recommended to the Pope the 
appointment of Bizanci as Apostolic Vicar. 
Hodermarsky , seeing through this the loss of his 
cause, on November 14, 1715 through the medium 
of the Primate, resigned from the bishopric and 
withdrew to the monastery. The King accepted 
his resignation and immediately submitted the 
name of Bizanci, whom the Primate recom- 
mended to the Pope for appointment on June 6, 
(136) 

16. Thus did Hodermarsky fail, and with him, 
the King lost the right of appointment, and the 
clergy the right of election. It is true, that on 
August 10, the clergy held a meeting of protest at 
Munkacs and Homonna, the minutes of which 
were sent to the Bishop of Eger, into whose 
hands Bizanci had placed the vows of obedience 
and promised to force the clergy to obedience 
also. But the affair had already gone so far as to 
make it impossible to heed the protest of the 
clergy. The Primate on August 26, 1715, ordered 
the Bishop of Eger to seriously reprimand the 
clergy, which does not want a Vicar, or bishop, 
except one whom they elected: being that the 
election does not depend upon their will. (137) 



13?. HODINKA ANTAL. Op. cit. pp. 510-512 

136. HODINKA ANTAL. Op. cit. pp. 512 513 

137. HODINKA ANTAL. Op. cit. pp. 622-625 



83 



17. The Sacred Congregation for the 
Propagation of the Faith, on January 14, 1716, 
once more discussed the question of appointment 
and once more announced that the bishopric of 
Munkacs does not exist, and therefore there can 
be no right of appointment reserved for the King. 
(138) 

18. The question was finally disposed of at the 
canonization of the bishopric of Munkacs in 1771, 
when the Holy See decreed that in the future, 
appointment of the Bishop of Munkacs shall 
occur according to the custom in vogue with 
other bishoprics of the country, namely: ap- 
pointment by the King and the confirmation by 
the Pope. (139) 

19. The situation prevailed until the cessation 
Qf the Apostolic Kingship in Hungary, A.D. 1918, 
and when the new state of Czecho-Slovakia was 
formed, the right to appoint bishops of Munkacs 
reverted back to the Holy See. (See nominations 
of Bishops Gebej Peter and Alexander Stojka.) 

20. Concerning the real value of the Union 
document, Anthony Hodinka, a great historian, 
has this to say: "It is impossible to refer to the 
Union conditions of 1652, since Rome never saw 
them, nor confirmed them. And a one-sided 
agreement does not bind the other's side^ (140) 

(How about the protests of the clergy*? ) 
OUR CLERGY'S LETTER TO THE HOLY 
FATHER OF ROME, JANUARY 15, 1652 

By the Grace of Christ Elected Most Holy 
Father and Universal Patriarch. We the priests 
the innate sons of the Holy Greek Rite and the 
inhabitants of the Apostolic Kingdom and who 
are registered through the counties in the list of 
our names know that the royal sacrament should 
be hidden, but the works of God should be 
revealed and be manifested more clearly than 

138. HODINKA ANTAL. Op. cit. p. 514, 

139. HODINKA ANTAL. Op. cit. pp. 622-625 

140. HODINKA ANTAL, Op. cit. pp. 508-509 

84 



the sun to all people, as such one, through tire 
inexpressible goodness and mercy of our God 
toward the rational creature used to be declared. 
Therefore, fixed unto this principle and angelical 
rule, we let know before the whole world, to your 
Holiness, and we announce and we extol with 
praises rising to heaven, namely, that by the 
grace of God and our Saviour, which was 
liberally diffused into us by the operation of 
which the most lovable glad tidings of the 
salvation of the souls, and by the abdication of 
the Greek insane Schism, we have been taken 
back, and we have rebetrothed to the Im- 
maculate Virgin, to the Spouse of the Only 
Begotten Son of God, that is to say to the Holy 
Roman Church, which without any guilt on her 
part, up to this day had been hated by us. This 
very reduction of ours had been done in the year 
of Salvation 1649, on the 24th day of April during 
the reign of Ferdinand III, the Sacred Roman 
Emperor in the Latin Church of the Fort of 
Ungvar, on the grounds of the Right Honorable 
Count George de Homonna, which was there. 
The Right Reverend Bishop of Munkacs 
Taraszovics, who has already departed from 
among the living, who by having followed the 
tenets of the schismatics and heretics, broke the 
fetters of the Holy Union, he publicly rean- 
nounced the announcement of the Catholic 
Church. 

Perceiving this tlie venerable Father in 
Christ the Lord George Jakusics, Bishop of Eger, 
who is already resting in Christ, having with him 
the Reverend Basilian Fathers invited for this 
purpose, the Father Peter Parthenius, who today 
is our Bishop and the Reverend Gabriel 
Cassovicius, he invited us most kindly through 
his letters to Ungvar, and delivering us an op- 
portune sermon about the Holy Union, through 
the aforesaid Fathers, who had in mind, by the 
Holy Spirit disposing us so, he effected it most 
easily, and he set up the feast day of St. George 
the martyr for the profession of the Faith. On 
that day, we, sixty-three priests, assembled 

85 



having followed the aforesaid Most Reverend 
Bishop of Eger into the above-mentioned church. 
Having celebrated the Mystery of the Sacrifice 
without the shedding of blood in our Ruthenian 
language, and some of the priests having con- 
fessed their sins sacramentally, we pronounce 
the Profession of the Faith publicly with audible 
voice the prescribed form. That is to say: we 
believe all and everything that our Holy Roman 
Mother Church orders to believe, we profess our 
Holiest Father Lord Innocent the X, to be the 
Universal Pastor of ^he Church of Christ and of 
us, we profess that we wish and want to depend 
upon Him with our successors, but with these 
added conditions: 

1. that we be allowed to keep the Greek Rite; 

2. to have the bishop chosen by us and con- 
firmed by the Apostolic See. 

3. to use freely ecclesiastical immunities, to 
which the Most Rev. Bishop most easily con- 
sented. The same thing had been approved in the 
year of 1648 by Benedict Kisdi, Bishop of Eger, 
with his Vicar General while the Reverend 
Father in Christ Thomas Jaszberenyi, S.J., 
religious was assisting. This affair of ours was in 
the highest degree strengthened by the paternal 
solicitude of the Right Reverend Prince of 
Hungary George Lippay Archbishop of Esz- 
tergom, who had been visited twice by a 
delegation consisting of the aforesaid Basilian 
Fathers; also the Right Reverend Bishop of 
Vacz, Lord Matthew Tarnoczy, to whom we are 
bound in perpetuity. 

By letting known your Holiness all these 
things, we humbly and unanimously ask the 
paternal benediction, the promotion of our affair 
and the confirmation of the Reverend Father 
Parthenius, the Bishop-elected by us. 

Ungvar, year 1652, 15th day of January, the 
obedient servants, the Greek Rite priests, 

Alexius Ladomirsky, Arch-Deacon of 
Makovica, Stephen Andreas, Arch-Deacon of 
SpiS, Gregory Hostovicki, Arch-Deacon of 

86 



Homonna, Stephen Arch-Deacon of Strena, 
Daniel Ivanovics, Arch-Deacon of Uz, Alexius 
Filipovics, Arch-Deacon of Stropko. (141) 

"BREVE" OF POPE 
ALEXANDER VII, JUNE 8, 1655 

To the Ven. Brother the Archbishop of 
Strigonia, from Alexander VII. PP. Ven. 
Brother, Health and Apostolic Blessing. 

When you petitioned our Predecessor In- 
nocent X of blessed memory and after his death, 
humbly petitioned us, who have been raised to 
the summit of the Supreme Apostolate, that we, 
in order that he may exercise the pontificals ana 
other offices of this order, deign to confirm and 
benignly dispense, irregardless of his con- 
secration by three schismatic bishops, Par- 
thenius, a Ruthenian Catholic priest of the Order 
of St. Basil, elected Bishop of the Ruthenians 
inhabiting Munkacs and other places ; the matter 
having been maturely discussed at the session 
held in our presence of the Supreme and 
Universal inquisition, and suff raged by the votes 
and council of our Venerable Christian 
Republics, placed against heretical depravity, 
we, to your fraternal grace upon confiding io 
your rectitude and prudence in the Lord, and in 
order that the above-mentioned Parthenius may 
labour in behalf of the salvation of the souls of 
those accredited to him and that he may with 
great zeal and solicitude, apply himself to the 
conversion of heretics and schismatics, and 
after, placing upon him, according to your 
judgment, some salutary penance, grant you the 
faculty to absolve Parthenius, providing he 
humbly asks you, from whatever censures and 
suspensions he has incurred and from every 

141. HODINKAANTAL."Okmanytar"Nos. 122, 
163, 166 

NILLES. "Symboliae" pp. 824-826 



87 



irregularity that he might have contracted in the 
aforesaid circumstances... and in order that he 
may enjoy and diligently exercise, over the 
Ruthenians of the Greek Rite of Munkacs and of 
the other regions of the Kingdom of Hungary, 
designable by you, the pontifical offices of 
episcopal order and jurisdiction, we, not- 
withstanding the apostolic and other general or 
special constitutions and ordinances, issued by 
universal, provincial or synodal councils, and 
the rest in whatsoever manner contrary, hereby, 
by virtue of our Apostolic authority and the tenor 
of these presents, grant and impart the 
necessary and opportune faculty of benignly 
dispensing him from the aforementioned. 

Given at Rome, at St. Mary's the Major, 
under the pontifical ring on June, 1655, in the 
first year of our pontificate.ll+2 ) 

THE HISTORICAL DIVISION OF THE 
MUNKACS EPARCHY. 

The history of the Munkacs Eparchy is 
divided into three periods: 1. The period of 1491 
to 1648, i.e. from the time of Bishop John to 
Parthenius Petrovics, during whose episcopacy 
the Eparchy was under the jurisdiction of the 
Bishop of Eger. 

2. The period of 1648 to 1772, i.e. from Par- 
thenius Peter Petrovics to the time of Bradacs 
Janos, during whose episcopacy the Eparchy 
obtained her Eparchial rights. 

3. The period from 1772 to the time of Bishop 
Bacsinszky Andras (1772-1809) the re-organizer 
of the Eparchy of Munkacs. (143) 

THE FIRST PERIOD 1491-1648 
1. Bishop John I. (144) (1491-1498). King 
Laszlo II simply mentions the bishop in extent 

142. HODINKA ANTAL. Okmanytar No. 131, pp. 
177-178 

BAZILOVITS J. Op. cit. Vol. II. pp. 69-70 

143. MESZAROS KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 113. 

88 



documents. There is no mention made of any of 
his activities. We are not even certain of the date 
of his death. Because of a lack of documents, 
nothing is known of the years between 1498 and 
1551. We know absolutely nothing of the bishop of 
Munkacs. No researcher has been able to un- 
cover any sources of material. 

2. Bishop Basil f (1551-1552) is mentioned in 
the Royal document of the Hungarian King 
Ferdinand I, as being the Bishop of Munkacs. 
However, there is no mention of his activities, 
the date of his consecration as a bishop or date of 
his death. 

3. BishoR Gabriel (1556-1559) is mentioned in 
the document of Bathory Gyorgy, the County 
Overlord of Szatmar and Szabolcs from 1556. 
Bishop Gabriel is also mentioned in the 
document of Prince Zsigmoqd Janos of Tran- 
sylvania. This is all we know of him. 

An assertion is made in the document of 
Prince Zsigmond Janos and King Miksa of 
Hungary dated - 13, 1569, that Bishop Gabriel 
while yet alive had chosen his successor. The 
alleged successor's name was not found in the 
document and he is therefore not listed as one of 
the bishops of Munkacs. 

4. Bishop Amphilochy about whose activities 
we know nothing except that some historian 
found traces of evidence that his name was 
Amphilochy. 

5. Bishop Basil II (1597). The year which 
marks the beginning of his activities is not 
known. The county officials created many dif- 
ficulties for him in his Episcopal work. He 
visited King Rudolph in Prague (Praha) and 
received a document on March 29, 1597 which 
placed him under the patronage of the King. 

6. Bishop Sergius (1601-1616) Mention is 
made of his episcopacy in decrees of both 
Matyas, the Royal Prince, (1601) and Bocskay 
Istvan, Prince of Transylvania (1606). They 
simply mention that he had to endure much 
suffering, because of the wars and that the 
Prince of Transylvania took care of him. 

89 



7. Bishop Eutimius (1618), We know of him 
from the documents of the County Overlord of 
Szatmar dated September 18, 1618. The 
document states that he was a Bishop of 
Munkacs. 

8. Bishop Petronius (1623-1627). We know of, 
him from a document of Bethlen Gaber, Prince 
of Transylvania dated January 10, 1623. The 
document was found in the city of Munkacs. It 
indicates that he presided as bishop of Munkacs 
for a period of five years. 

9. Bishop Janos II Gregorovics (1627-nwJ). 
This bishop was also approved by Prince Bethlen 
Gabor in Kassa (Kosice) on January 12, 1627. 
This document describes him as a tall and pious 
man. It states that he conducted canonical 
visitations in the great Eparchy of Munkacs. He 
presided as bishop for six years.<l^+J 

10. Bishop Taraszovics Basil (1634-1648) He 
was consecrated in Jassy, Moldavia in lt>33 and 
was approved by Rakoczi Gyorgy II., Prince of 
Transylvania on January 5, 1634. This bishop 
continued the canonical visitations, begun so 
successfully by Bishop Janos II Gregorovics. In 
the sixth year of his episcopacy, Prince Rakoczi, 
a Protestant, forced him into schism. Within a 
short time he made a public confession and 
returned to the fold of the Catholic Church. 

Upon Bishop Basil's return to the Catholic 
Church, the Transylvanian Prince became so 
angered that he ordered Captain Balling Janos to 
arrest him. He was arrested on April 5, 1644 
while celebrating the Divine Liturgy and was put 
to prison. Later he was freed by the Emperor. He 
died as a private person. 

Towards the end of this period it i& necessary 
to point out, that many Greek Rite Rusins and 
Rumanians became schismatics and appointed 
or elected their own bishops who referred to 
them as Bishops of Munkacs, but who in fact 
never were such. (145) 

144. MESZAROS KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 114. 

145. SCHEMATISMUS EPARCHII 
MUNKACENSIS 1899. p. XHL 

90 



THE SECOND PERIOD IN THE HISTORY Of 
THE MUNKACS EPARCHY 1648-1772 

This period begins with the Episcopacy of 

Peter Parthenius Petrovics-Rostisinsky (1648- 

1670), eleventh Bishop of Munkacs. (146) He 

was selected its bishop after the resignation of 

Bishop Taraszovics Basil and was consecrated in 

1652. He was the first bishop of the Eparchy of 

Munkacs elected by an Eparchial Synod held in 

Ungvar on January 15, 1652 and approved by 

Pope Innocent X. Because of troubled times he 

was not approved by the King until 1659. He was 

installed as the Bishop soon after this approval 

was obtained. 

The work of Bishop Parthenius Peter was of 
extreme significance. The Union with the Holy 
See which had been gravely weakened hy the 
Protestants, had gradually begun to gain 
strength. Because of this strength Parthenius 
was able to convene two Synods in Ungvar in 1648 
and 1652. The Synod of 1648 was especially 
significant in the history of the Munkacs 
Eparchy, because there were 400 clergy in at- 
tendance. The Synod was held in the Seminary 
Chapel and renewal of the Union was the main 
subject discussed. During this Synod the clergy 
made three important points or conditions for 
Reunion with the Holy See of Rome. 

1. The Greek Rite has the right to exist 
without hindrance forever. The Holy Eucharist 
especially is to be distributed to the faithful 
under both species. 

2. The clergy must always have the right to 
marry, if they desire, before ordination. 

3. They shall enjoy the right to freely eletit 
their own bishop and shall also enjoy the 
privileges which at that time were permitted to 
the Latin clergy. 

We also find evidence that during this period 
the Eparchy of Munkacs was subjected to the 

146. HODINKA ANTAL. Op. cit. p. 316. 

91 



ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Metropolitan 
Latin See of Esztergom, The Archbishop of Eger 
exercised undue force of influence upon the 
Eparchy of Munkacs for the purpose of having it 
degraded to a Vicariate, i.e., without full 
Episcopal rights and jurisdiction. The 
Metropolitan, Primate Lippay Gyorgy, had 
protested this type of activity all during this 
period. 

We are not certain for how long Bishop 
Parthenius Peter presided as the Bishop of 
Munkacs, nor the date of his death. (Most 
probably 1670). 

We know very little of the period from Par- 
thenius Peter to 1690, because there are no 
documents. We know that the following were 
consecrated as Bishops for the Eparchy of 
Munkacs: (147) 

Zekany Joannicus (1654-1684) 
Volosinovics Jozsef (1672) 
Kulcsenszky Porphitius (1683) 
Rakovecky Methodius (1688) 

The above-mentioned bishops had very little 
political influence, therefore they could not have 
helped their people. (148) 

From the notes of Bishop DeCamelis J. Jozsef 
(1690-1706) we find that Zekany Joannicus 
became a bishop during the time of Bishop 
Parthenius Peter 1658 and that he officiated until 
1684. Most probably Prince Rakoczi Gyorgy II 
appointed him to succeed Bishop Parthenius. 
Through the intercession of Bishop Zekany, 
Captain Multyanszky, a Rumanian from 
Moldavia, built a stone church near the 
monastery of Munkacs. When Bishop Parthenius 
took charge of the monastery, as directed by the 
Emperor in 1660, Bishop Zekany founded the 
Imsticovo monastery on his private property. 
This monastery exists to the present day. 

147. BALUGYANSZKY ANDRAS. Op. cit., 481- 
484 pp. 

MESZAROS KAROLY.Op. cit. p. 114 
PEKAR B. ATHANASIUS. "Narisi 1st. 
Cerk, Zakarpatja. pp. ] 98-206 

92 



We also have information concerning Bishop 
Voloszinovics Jozsef from the notes of Bishop 
DeCamelis. We know, for example, that he or- 
dained persons to the priesthood. It appears, that 
he was a wandering bishop, who in troubled 
times came to Hungary from Galicia and 
remained for a time. In one of his documents he 
refers to himself, as having been appointed by a 
Sovereign and that he appointed a Father An- 
dras to a parish. 

That Porphirius Kulcsinszky was a lawful 
Bishop of Munkacs can be proved by a letter 
dated May 8, 1685 written by the Polish King 
John to the Austro-Hungarian Emperor Leopold. 
The letter states that Porphirius was recom- 
mended by the Polish King and was given the 
Episcopal See by the Sovereign Leopold. 
Because he was unable to occupy the Episcopal 
See on account of political interference in 
Galicia, Lipnicky J. Janos was appointed the 
Vicar. We must note that Lipnicky also was a 
native of Galicia, who came to Munkacs 
Eparchy as a consecrated Bishop and who was 
entrusted with, the Vicariate on December 13, 
1681 by Szechenyi Gyorgy, the Primate and 
Metropolitan of" Esztergom. We do not know 
when Bishop Kulcsinszky occupied the Episcopal 
See, because a petition of the Metropolitan of 
Esztergom, Leopold Kolonies, in 1689 a 
Rakovecky Matyas is mentioned as the Bishop of 
the Eparchy Of Munkacs. Most likely, Bishop 
Porphirius who was the Bishop at that time 
either died or had resigned from the Episcopacy. 

Bishop Porphirius Kulcsenszky is an 
altogether different person from Porphirius 
Ardan, who was made an anti-bishop by Captain 
Balling Janos, who enjoyed the full confidence of 
Rakoczi Gyorgy after they forcibly ejected 
Bishop Taraszovics from the Episcopacy. This 

148. SCHEMATISMUS EPARCHI 
MUNKACENSIS. 1899. p. XIII 

93 



Bishop Ardan was not recognized as a bishop by 
either the clergy or the people. He subsequently 
resigned from the episcopacy and died in the 
Munkacs monastery. The inscription in the 
monastery church attests to this as follows: 
"Porphirius Bishop of Munkacs died in 1643." 

Rakovecky Methodius was a married 
clergyman who was the pastor of Rakocz, 
Ugocsa County. He entered the monastery after 
the death of his wife. He was consecrated Bishop 
as a monk in 1688 by Raphael Angelo and was 
given the title of Archbishop of Spolate. He was 
unable to obtain the approval of the Royal 
Sovereign for the Episcopacy and thus entered 
the Uglya monastery in Maramarosh County. He 
died there during the time of Bishop Deeamelis. 

The sixteenth Bishop of the Eparchy of 
Munkacs was a Greek, who was born on the 
Island of Chios. This highly educated man 
Deeamelis J. J. (149) was the bishop from 1690 to 
1706. The Metropolitan of Esztergom, Leopold 
Kolonics, invited him with the approval of the 
Austro-Hungarian Sovereign Leopold I, to the 
Episcopacy of the Rusin people. He assumed this 
position on April 20, 1690. Pope Alexander VIII 
appointed him Bishop of Sebastine and Vicar of 
the Munkacs Eparchy on November 5, 1688. 

From this time on the Eparchy of Munkacs 
was subjected to the jurisdiction of the Ar- 
chdiocese of Eger. The Bishop of Munkacs was 
thus considered as a Vicar of the Eastern Rite 
subject to the Archbishop of Eger. This is evident 
from all the documents of this period wherein the 
Bishop of Munkacs is referred to as a Vicar 
subject to the Archbishop of Eger. Even though 
Bishop Deeamelis was^not elected by the clergy, 
he was nevertheless one of the best known and 
most respected bishops of this Eparchy. 

From the very beginning, Bishop Deeamelis 
endeavored to reclaim the Munkacs monastery, 
which was forcefully occupied by the family of 

149. MESZARDS KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 114 

94 



Prince Rikoezi Gyorgy after the death of Bishop 
Parthenius Peter. Bishop Decamelis with the 
approval of King Leopold I, eventually regained 
this property and entrusted it to the Order of St. 
Basil the Great. The question of ownership was 
settled for all time. 

During this period the feudal Masters 
(Panstvo) forced the clergy and their families to 
work on certain designated days for them. 
Beating the clergy who refused to work for them 
was common. This was stopped through the 
energetic intervention of Bishop Decamelis. He 
also convened many Eparchial Synods through 
which he established canonical order. Bishop 
Decamelis also had printed the first Catechism 
in 1692. He made arrangements with Archbishop 
Leopold Kolonics to have yearly three 
seminarians from Munkacs sent to study at the 
seminary of Trnava (Nagy Szombat) It was 
from this seminary that the Eparchy of Munkacs 
received many of its known bishops and priest's. 

Because of the wars and unstable conditions, 
Bishop Decamelis in 1700 moved to Eperjes 
(Presov) and there performed his eparchial 
duties in peace. He spent six years there and died 
in 1706. He was buried in the church of Minorite 
monks. In 1816 this same church became the 
Cathedral church of the Eparchy of Eperjes 
(Presov). 

The Seventeenth Bishop was Hodermarszky 
J. Janos from 1707-1715. (150) He was born in 
Hundert Mark, Szepes County. Completed his 
theological studies in Nagy Szombat (Trnava) 
seminary. He entered the Order of St. Basil the 
Great as an ordained priest in 1701. He excelled 
greatly in his years of priestly work and was 
appointed the bishop of Munkacs by Emperor 
Joseph I. The decree of appointment gave 
recognition to his successful work and great 
interest in the Rusin people. 

Rome was reluctant to approve the ap- 
pointment of Hodermarszky to the episcopacy, 

150. BALUGYANSZKY ANDRAS. Op. cit. p.4» 

95 



because of his involvement in many battles of the 
war in which he opposed Emperor Leopold I., 
and his successor Carl III. Hodermarszky 
became angry because of the delay in granting 
his episcopal appointment, resigned from the 
episcopacy in 1715 and then entered the 
monastery. In a short time he became the 
Provincial in the Order of St. Basil the Great. 
Because of the bitterness engendered, his suc- 
cessor Bishop Gennady Gyorgy, was deprived of 
the benefice granted by the Emperor and was 
sustained by the cathedra ticum alone. Hoder- 
marszky died in the Munkacs monastery in 1729. 

The Eighteenth Bishop Byzanczi Genedius 
Gyorgy 1716 - 1733, was born in Nagy-Rakocz, 
Ugocsa County, he studied in the seminary of 
Nagy S2ombat (Trnava) and was ordained in 
1701. He became the pastor of Nagy Kaklo. 
Bishop DeCamelis soon appointed him an Ar- 
chdeacon and when Hodermarszky could not 
obtain approval for his appointment from the 
Holy See, the Archbishop of Eger appointed him 
Vicar in 1713. On May 4, 1715 the clergy met in 
Ungvar under the chairmanship of Augustine, 
Primate of Esztergom, and selected Bizanczi for 
the episcopacy. 

The only protest against his nomination came 
from the Basilian monks, because he was not a 
monk of the Order of St. Basil the Great. Rome 
approved his nomination in 1716 and on Sep- 
tember 13, 1716 he was consecrated in Lemberg 
(Lvov) Galicia. 

A Royal decree was issued on November 8, 
1716 announcing the nomination of Byzanczi. It is 
an important document, because the Eparchy of 
Munkacs is referred to as "DistriqtuS 
Munkacsensis", i.e., the District of Munkacs, 
making it subject to the jurisdiction of the Ar- 
chbishop of Eger. 

Byzanczi worked diligen'ly to strengthen the 
Faith in the Eparchy. We also make note of the 
fact that when the Rumanian Greek Rite Bishop 
of Fogaras died, Byzanczi was appointed the 
Vicar of this Eparchy. 

96 



His work for the people and their faith was 
blessed. An interesting proof of this is that after 
the death of Hodermarszky, he was chosen to be 
the Superior bl the Basilian monks, who once 
protested his nomination. 

During the Episcopacy of Byzanczi (151) 
another great event occurred. The icon of the 
Blessed Virgin Mother of God in Pocs, Szabolcs 
County, wept for the first time (1696). This fact 
was authenticated by an official committee 
composed of both clergy and laity. Following this 
investigation the Holy Roman See designated it 
as a Shrine to which pilgrimages (Otpust-bucsu) 
were made on the Feast of the Blessed Virgin 
Mary Mother of God. To show his special love for 
this shrine, the Bishop began construction of a 
beautiful church. He was only able to bless the 
cornerstone in 1731, because he died on July 22, 
1733 before it was completed. He was buried in 
the monastery cemetery in Munkacs. 

The bishop who succeeded him was Bishop 
Olsavszky S. Simon 1733-1737, who came from 
the village of Olsavica, Szepes County. He 
completed his philosophical studies in Nagy 
Szombat (Trnava) and was awarded a Doctorate 
in Philosophy. He was ordained in 1719 and 
became the pastor in Munkacs. In 1728 he was 
appointed the Vicar General to Bishop Byzanczi 
and after his death was elected the Bishop. He 
received Papal and Sovereign approval of his 
election in 1733 and was consecrated a bishop the 
same year in Lemberg (Lvov). He died in 1737. 

(152 > . .,_. ,. 

Blazsovszky G. Gyorgy, the twentieth bishop 

(1738-1742), was born in Blazsov, Saros County 

and adopted the name of his native village as his 

episcopal name. His family name was 

Mankowics. He studied in the seminary of Nagy 

Szombat (Trnava) and was ordained in 1729. As 

a young priest he served as the secretary to 

Bishop Byzanczi, a position he also held with 

151. MESZAROS KAROLY. Op. cit. p. 114 

152. HODINKA ANTAL. Op. cit. pp. 582-596 

97 



Bishop Olsavszky. He was elected to succeed 
Bishop Olsavszky and was consecrated in Lem- 
berg (Lvov). Shortly after the beginning of his 
episcopal administration the clergy was 
awarded a yearly salary of 2,000 guldens from 
the King's treasury. He also continued the 
construction of the Pocs Shrine, but did not 
complete it. He died in 1742 in the Kis Berezna 
(Mala Berezna) monastery where he went 
during the cholera epidemic. (153) 

Michael Emmanuel Olsavszky (1743-1767), 
the younger brother of Bishop Simon Olsavszky, 
became the next bishop. He also studied in the 
seminary at Nagy Szombat (Tmava) (154) and 
was ordained in 1725. As pastor of Munkacs he 
became the Vicar General to Bishop Blaz- 
sovszky. When Blazsovszby died Olsavszky was 
appointed the Vicar of the Eparchy of Munkacs 
by the Archbishop of Eger, Erdody G. Peter. 
Shortly afterward, he entered the Order of St. 
Basil the Great and was soon elected bishop. The 
Sovereign and the Roman See approved the 
election on March 12, 1743. He was consecrated 
in Pocs by Bishop Klein Janos, the Rumanian 
Greek Rite Bishop of Fogaras, Transylvania. 

Among his numerous accomplishments are 
the following: (155) 

1. He completed the construction of the 
Maria-Pocs church and blessed it in 1749. 

2. At his own expense he began construction 
of the monastery. 

3. Through the intercession of Racz Demeter, 
he obtained valuable property from Count 

153. PEKAR B. ATHANASIUS OSBM. Op. cit. 
p. 199 

154. PEKAR B. ATHANASIUS OSBM. Op. cit. p. 

199 

155. BESK1D A. N. DR. "lz Minuvsaho Odnoj 
Krestjanskoj Semji". A.R.V. Kalendar 
1981. p. 61. 

STRIPSKY HIADOR. A.R.V. Kalendar. 

1932. p\74. 



98 



Karolyi family for the upkeep and maintenance 
of the Maria-Pocs church and monastery. 

4. With the financial help of the same Racz 
Demeter , he built the Munhacs monastery on the 
Cerneca hora (monks mountain). 

5. He built a school, seminary and episcopal 
residence in Munkacs, and from this time on the 
Bishop of Munkacs no longer resided in the 
Munkacs monastery. 

6. To help the financial plight of the clergy, he 
obtained an increase of 1,000 Guldens in their 
annual salary. 

7. He was the first bishop to institute the stole 
benefits as well as monastery help for literary 
work. 

Through his patience and skill be was also 
able to obtain the ecclesiastical independence of 
the Munkacs Eparchy from the jurisdiction of 
the Archdiocese of Eger and the Latin 
Episcopate. During the forced suppression of the 
Eparchy of Munkacs by the Archbishop of Eger, 
it was impossible for the bishop to build a parish 
church without the express permission of the 
Latin Archbishop of Eger. 

Bishop Olsavszky began his extremely suc- 
cessful work in defiance of the juridical sup- 
pression. In pursuit of his goal of juridical in- 
dependence, he made four trips to Vienna 
(Austria) traveling by horse drawn carriage. He 
also made a trip to Rome. He did not see the 
realization of his dream and died in Munkacs in 
1767'. (156) Pour years after bis death the 
Munkacs Eparchy was freed from the 
jurisdiction of the Latin Archbishop of Eger. He 
was buried in the crypt of the new church in 
Maria Pocs, just as he desired. 

Bradacs Janes 111 (1786-1772) (157) returned 
to Munkacs upon the death of Bishop Olsavszky , 
He had been representing the Eparchy of 
Munkacs and late Bishop in Vienna for three 

156. LACZtfO MICHAEL, SJ. "The Pastoral 
Activity' p.^ 

99 



years on the matter of freeing the Eparchy from 
Eger. Upon his return, he was appointed Vicar 

General for the Eparchy according to the in- 
struction of Bishop Olsavszky. 

He began his successful episcopal work im- 
mediately. He took the vows of a monk in Maria- 
Pocs and was consecrated bishop, by Bishop 
Meletius Kovacs of the Rumanian Greek Rite. 
The archbishop of Eger continued to insist on 
exercising jurisdiction over the Bishop of 
Munkacs and thus invited Bishop Bradacs to 
Eger for the purpose of taking the oath of 
fidelity. Bishop Bradacs refused the invitation 
and after being subjected to much pressure from 
higher officials t he gave the entire matter fur- 
ther consideration. He finally decided to resign 
from the episcopacy rather than submit himself 
and the Eparchy to this humiliation. 

During these sad and troubled times, Father 
Andrew Bacsinszky, the Vicar of Oorog, visited 
Bishop Bradacs to encourage him and to boost 
his morale. During this visit he counseled the 
Bishop to approach the King himself on the 
subjects of ecclesiastical independence for the 
Eparchy of Munkacs. Bishop Bradacs accepted 
his advice and sent Bacsinszky Andras as his 
representative to Vienna, Austria. This highly- 
educated and gifted priest expended every effort 
in the cause, but was unsuccessful. 

After Bacsinszky's return Bishop Bradacs 
himself traveled to Vienna, personally to present 
his petition to the King. Prime Minister 
Blumegen notified Bishop Bradacs to the effect 
that it was the King's desire that he remain 
under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Eger. 
The message from the Prime Minister left the 
Bishop bitterly disappointed and shocked. This 
bitterness and resentment was so deep and so 
obvious that it affected the Prime Minister. The 

157. BESK1D A. N. DR. "Jagerskoje Vlijanije" 
p. 57 

BOYSAK BASIL. "The Fate of the Holy 
Union p. 5 

100 



result was that the Prime Minister promised that 
he would do everything within his power to ob- 
tain the wish of the Bishop. 

His efforts were successful for upon the 
petition of the Empress-Queen Maria Terezia, 
dated November 24, 1770, Pope Clement XV 
agreed that the Eparchy of Munkacs be 
autonomous. The Canonical decree in this 
matter was issued in 1771. 

The decision of the Roman See brought joy to 
the entire Eparchy. Sad to say, the joy was short- 
lived, because Bishop Bradacs died in 1772 at the 
age of 41. He was buried in the Munkacs 
monastery cemetery on Jury 10, 1772. 

Bishop Bradacs Janos was born in Torisa, 
Szepes, County, on February 14, 1732. His father 
Simeon was a civil servant and his mother 
Iszloczki Katarina. He took his theological 
studies in Nagy Szombat (Trnava) and later 
taught in the Munkacs seminary for eight years. 
During his episcopacy, the first Cathedral 
Chapter (KapHula) was established. 

QUEEN MARIE TEREZIA THE GREAT 
BENEFACTOR AND PROTECTOR OF THE 
GREEK RITE CATHOLIC RUSINS AND 
MAGYARS. 

The canonical establishment of the Munkacs 
Eparchy is another point in history that shows 
Roman Catholics often choose to be oblivious of 
the traditional rights of Greek Rite Catholics. A 
great struggle had to be undergone, and then, 
only through the direct intercession of Empress 
and Queen of Hungary Maria Terezia, did the 
Apostolic See consent to recognizing the rights of 
Rusin Greek Rite Catholics to exist. Until that 
time these faithful only had a vicariate, subject 
to the Roman Rite Diocese of Eger. 

During a conversation with the Papal Nuncio 
in 1911, an official of the Hungarian Government 
presented the question of autonomy for the 
Munkacs Eparchy. (158) The idea was con- 

158. flODINKA ANTAL. Op. tit. p. 607 

101 



sidered a noble one, but it was thought that so 
many extenuating circumstances were involved 
in its execution, that it was allowed to quietly slip 

into oblivion. 

An opportunity presented itself to Bishop 
Olszavszky Mihaly at a later date, when in a 
petition to the Queen he proposed that full 
autonomy be granted to the Munkacs Eparchy, 
similar to that granted to the Roman Rite 
dioceses. His petition specified that Munkacs 
Eparchy would not be subjected to the Eger 
Diocese. He pleaded that Maria Terezia aid in 
the establishment of harmony between Ms 
clergy and those of Bishop Grof Eszterhazy of 
Eger. The situation became heated when the 
question of jurisdiction arose concerning mixed 
rite marriages. At that time the pastors of both 
rites would assist at marriages. The point of the 
scandal was reached when an actual physical 
confrontation was had in the presence of the 
assembled laity. (159) 

Maria Terezia told the Papal Nuncio of this 
incident, in an audience with him, and 
unequivocally stated that unless the Holy See 
acted the possibility of a schism was definitely 
present. The fear of schism was not without 
foundation. Her hand was strengthened by an 
incident that occurred in Hajdu-Dorog (160) in 
1765. Moved by resentment against the 
arrogance of the Roman Catholic domination, 
the Rusins became dissidents. To stop this 
upheaval the Lord Lieutenant of Zemplen 
County, a certain Dory, was personally sent as a 
chief official to silence the people and warn them 
to live in peace. An investigation of this incident 
proved that the dissident group was in contact 
with a Russian General stationed in Tokay, 
Zemplen County. It turned out that the General 
had brought a group of Orthodox priests with 

159. KODINKA ANTAL. Op. cit. p. «08 
1«0. HODINKA ANTAL. Op. cit. p. 606 

102 



him hoping for just such an incident. Maria 
TErezia personally asked the Czarist court to 
have the General recalled. He was. The incident 
upset the very Catholic Maria Terezia to the 
extent that she re f erred the matter to the Papal 
Nuncio in 1770, reminding him that unless 
recognition is given the Rusin people, peace 
would be in constant jeopardy. 

This specific incident, when its dangers 
became apparent, helped bring about the formal 
establishment of the Munkacs Eparchy. Another 
element to be considered is the fact that the 
Rusins and Russians were joined by a feeling of 
Pan-Slovanism. Maria Terezia properly un- 
derstood that if a dissident movement swept 
through her territories the political con* 
.sequences for the Hungarian Government would 
be severe. The continued Catholicism of the 
Rusin was a very practical political con* 
si deration 

THREE LETTERS 

Maria Terezia made her first move in this 
direction on April 30, 1766 when she wrote letters, 
concerning the Rusin's spiritual aspirations, to 
the Pope, to Cardinal Albani and to Bishop 
Michael Olsavszky. (161) 

In the letters to the Pope and Cardinal Albani 
the history of the Eparchy was introduced. 
Maria Terezia explained how Prince Fedor 
Koriatovics established the eparchy in the city of 
Munkacs with headquarters in the Basilian 
Monastery. The Basilian Provincial, in fact, 
became a bishop in 1491. The Rusins under his 
jurisdiction were not in union with Rome. They 
made an agreement to unite themselves with 
Rome in about 1646 ( to 1649) under the condition 
that they be allowed to retain their episcopal 
jurisdiction as it was prior to the Union. 

161. HODINKA ANTAL. Op. cit. p. 609. 

103 



There were 839 parishes, 675 priests and 
119,107 faithful. Since this episcopacy was not 
canonically erected, only the title of the old 
Eparchy remained. Succeeding bishops were 
ordained "in partibus" to its title. The condition 
was imposed upon them that since this 
episcopacy and Eparchy were within the 
territorial bounds of the Roman Kite Diocese of 
Eger, the Rusin Greek Rite Catholics should 
become subordinate to the jurisdiction of the 
Eger Diocese. The absurdity of the situation was 
apparent to all but the Roman Hierarchy. Seeing 
the bitterness of the clergy and faithful at their 
"second class citizenship" in the Catholic 
Church, the Orthodox tried by every means to 
exploit this situation of three centuries standing. 
Queen Maria Terezia petitioned the Pope on this 
basis. She demanded mat the Rusins living in the 
Munkacs and Maramaros districts be given a 
full-powered, juridicial bishop. She further 
stated that such a separate Eparchy would in no 
way endanger the Eger Diocese. To answer the 
question of financial ability to survive, Maria 
Terezia ordered an annual grant of 5,000 Florins 
subsidy for the Munkacs Eparchy. The move 
obviously was meant to preserve the Union as 
well as promoting peace and harmony. 

Bishop Olsavszky, in the meantime, strove 
tirelessly to remove the causes of strife between 
the Roman and Greek Rite clergy and laity. In a 
letter to Bishop Grof Eszterhazy of the Eger 
Diocese he urged that charity be the keynote of 
the relationships between the two rites. 

On June 11, 1766 the Holy Father 
acknowledged the prudence and zeal of Queen 
Maria Terezia. But before deciding the question 
he asked for an opinion from Bishop Eszterhazy. 
The answer was to be relayed through the Papal 
Nuncio in Vienna, Austria. To gain time, Bishop 
Eszterhazy stalled in answering. It was his hope 
to persuade the Queen that the erection of the 
Eparchy in Munkacs was not really a necessity. 
Father Volodzko, finding this out, and being a 

104 



Basil ian Father and Procurator in Rome, wrote 
that Bishop Eszterhazy was maneuvering in the 
Eparchy's case, but assured him that although 
the case might be delayed, the Holy See would 
surely follow through on the Queen's suggestion. 
(162) 

In 1170 Queen Maria Terezia frankly stated to 
the Papal Nuncio that she did not change her 
mind concerning her views relative to the 
Munkacs Eparchy. She wrote a letter to Cardinal 
Albani on July 24 of that year, telling him that 
she was still awaiting a prompt fulfillment of her 
petition which the Queen had sent to the Pope on 
October 13 of the previous year. The Cardinal 
replied on August 20, excusing himself for not 
having replied sooner due to a lack of notification 
in the matter from the Vienna Nuncio. (163) 

Writing for a second time on November 18, 
Maria Terezia urged Cardinal Albani to approve 
her recommendation. Enclosing a document 
EXTRACTUS DEMONSTRANS JURIS 
FATRONATUS FUND AMENTA, she explained 
to the Holy Father that she was not petitioning 
for something she had no right to request. She 
correctly entitled it RATION FUNDATIONIS in 
part one; CHRISTIANITATIS in part two; and 
PRAESCRIPTIONIS in part three. She quoted 
from the Council of Constance, at which time the 
right of royal thrones was accepted in the 
erection of episcopacies for not only the Western, 
but also Eastern Churches. (164) Rome could 
hardly argue with this. 

Again on November 18 Maria Terezia ad- 
dressed herself to the Pope, stating that ab- 
solutely nothing would deter her from declaring 
the elevation of Munkacs to a full Eparchy. The 
proud bishop Grof Esz;terhazy was told by the 
Queen (165) that he should do nothing to defeat 

162, HODINKA ANTAL. Op. cit. p. 611. 

163. HODINKA ANTAL. Op. cit. p. 611. 

164, HODINKA ANTAL. Op. cit. p. 612. 

165. HODINKA ANTAL. Op. cit. p. 612. 

105 



the establishment of the new Eparchy, as this 
would be considered an infringement on her 
rights. (166) 

Finally on December 20, Cardinal Albani, 
with the knowledge and consent of the Pope, 
wrote a letter of apology to Maria Terezia for the 
petitions having been delayed. He stated that in 
this case the question of a new episcopal see in 
the territory of an old diocese, when there was a 
deviation of the rite from the original diocese, 
what with a populace made up of mixed rites, not 
even the clergy could be separated from each 
other. 

He reasoned further concerning the future 
that care must be taken to see whether it would 
assure peace (having two episcopal sees) or 
merely bring new strife. The Cardinal contended 
that such questions must necessarily be the 
cause of serious concern. With what he thought 
was a stroke of diplomatic genius, His Eminence 
reminded the Queen that this question did not 
touch the Crown, but was certainly important in 
the administration of the diocese. 

Above all, it seems, there were doubts in 
Rome about the wisdom of erecting the Munkacs 
episcopal see to the status of a full Eparchy. 

Attorneys by the names of DeAngelis and 
Conquelin in Rome presented documents in 
behalf of the Queen proving that the erection of a 
new episcopal see was not here in question. Proof 
sufficient was already had of the pre-existence of 
the See. (167). Even so, argued the Queen's legal 
representative if the pre-existence of the 
episcopal see could not be proved, the express 
wishes of the Queen must be fulfilled by Rome. 
Church law required it. The new See had a 
distinct population and language differences. It 
also fulfilled three main necessities: l~ 
necessary territory, 2-a city of the episcopal 
seat; and 3— it would not be harmful to the old 
episcopal see. 

166. HODINAK ANTAL. Op. cit. p. 612. 
L67. HODINKA ANTAL. Op. cit. p. 613. 

106 



In his subsequent memoirs Bishop Graf 
Eszterhazy defended himself for his delay in 
replying to the Papal Nuncio citing heavy 
episcopal duties and the excessive number of 
confirmations in his diocese. 

In the final analysis Bishop Eszterhazy 

argued that the Munkacs episcopal see was 
never erected. He pointed to the fact that even 
the Union with Rome was the work of his 
predecessor, who took in the converts under his 
patronage, retaining legal control over them and 
consequently the right of control still belonged to 
the Eger Diocese. 

The Holy Father then directed Bishop Esz- 
terhazy, in a letter dated November 14, 1767, to 
personally approach the Queen to explain his 
views as stated in his memoirs and to convince 
the Queen that dropping the idea of erecting the 
Episcopal See of Munkacs (168) would be most 
feasible. Obviously, the Pope was convinced that 
Bishop Grof Eszterhazy was correct in his 
assumptions. The result should have been the 
disapproval of the canonical establishment of the 
Munkacs Episcopal See. 

On August 25, 1768 the Queen, through 
Kaunitz, replied that she would not drop the 
case, but only defer it for the time being. 
However, she made it clear, at the same time, 
that Bishop Grof Eszterhazy's power over the 
Greek Rite Catholic faithful would diminish. In 
this letter the Queen was also careful to point,out 
something that should not go unnoticed. From 
the time of Bishop Telekessy, men of nobility sat 
in the Eger Episcopal seat, good men, but men 
who had no concern for the poor feudal people 
and the freed Rusin clergy. They neither cared 
for their plight nor did anything to alleviate their 
poverty. The Queen prophetically said: "Time 
will tell who is right - Bishop Grof Eszterhazy or 
the Queen." 

168. HODINKA ANTAL. Op. cit. p. 614. 

107 



Because of these entangled reasons Maria 
Terezia wrote to Bishop Grof Eszterhazy and 
Bishop Olsavszky's successor, Bishop Bradacs, 
that until further notice the status quo would 
remain. The letter was dated August 24, 1768. 
Bishop Bradacs was instructed to contact Bishop 
Eszterhazy and reach an agreement with him on 
the means of achieving peace. (169) 

So it was that on September 15, 1769 Bishop 
Bradacs visited Bishop Grof Eszterhazy. The 
latter behaved badly, haughtily attempting to 
demonstrate his superiority over Bishop 
Bradacs. A vehement, fiery and painful scene 
occurred between the two bishops. Bishop 
Bradacs with Father Bacsinszky Andras (later 
the Bishop of Munkacs ) returned to Sajopetri for 
consultations with the other clergy. They 
decided that in February of 1770 a delegate be 
sent to Vienna to report on the meeting to the 
Queen. Bishop Bradacs had fulfilled the Queen's 
request, but Bishop Grof Eszterhazy's 
unreasonable demands blocked a way to peace. 
<170) 

On May 4, 1770 the Queen directed her official, 
Kaunitz, to renew the case of the Munkacs 
Eparchy. He, however, recommended that a 
personal letter from the Queen be sent. Maria 
Terezia addressed a letter on May 12 to Pope 
Clement XIV, clarifying her views, adding new 
memoirs to those of Counsellor Conquelin's 
memoirs of 1767. 

Looking over the strife of the two bishops, it 
appeared peculiar that the clergy on March 7, 
1715, and again Bishop Olsavszky on July 26, 
1753, referred to the Papal Bulla and the Council 
citing those paragraphs relating to the Greek 
Rite so as to bolster their cause. 

Father Bacsinszky Andras took the report to 
Vienna. In this report the Council of the Lateran 
was mentioned for the first time in the 
"Quoniam" Chapter. 

169. HODINKA ANTAL. Op. cit. p. 616 

170. HODINKA ANTAL. Op. Cit. P. 616 

108 



It was noted in Vienna for the first time that 
only if the decision of the Lateran Council and 
the Curias were refuted, only then could there be 
reason for success. In his possession Counsellor 
Conquelin had Bishop Grof Eszterhazy's 
memoirs, thus making it easier for him to refute 
the Bishop's assertions. 

According to Counsellor Conquelin, Bishop 
Grof Eszterhazy's memoirs could be divided into 
three parts: 

1. The detailing of offenses of the Eger 
Episcopacy, by which the diocese would suffer, if 
a new episcopacy is erected. Counsellor 
Conquelin proved that the Eger Diocese would 
not suffer damage, because the Munkacs 
Eparchy existed before the Union with Rome, 
i.e., before the Bishop of Eger ruled it. Primate 
Lippay reminded the Propaganda de Fide 
Congregation, that the Dissident Bishops arc 
true Bishops validly ordained. It is with regret 
that Counsellor Conquelin did not include that 
the Dissidents have Apostolic succession also. It 
is a fact that there is no document of proof of 
many Munkacs Bishops. It is only an opinion that 
the first Bishop with the potestas ordinis must 
have been ordained somewhere; therefore, he 
must have had Apostolic succession. Rome 
denied the Apostolic succession of these Bishops, 
but never gave her reason that the Munkacs 
Episcopacy could not have enjoyed pre- 
existence. 

It was proved that the Eger Episcopacy would 
not be harmed. Secondly the statement is made 
that the Union with Rome was the sole work of 
the Eger Bishop. On the contrary, the Dissidents 
who became Uniates asked to be united with 
Rome at a Synod of the Latin Rite Bishops in 
Nagy Szombat (Trnava) and begged the Magyar 
Latin Rite Bishops that they too support their 
wishes. 

Concerning the jurisdiction - authority - of 
the Eger Diocese Bishop we can set up three 
different periods: 

109 



1. The Dissident period. 

2. From the Union to the Apostolic Vicars 
appointments. 

3. The Apostolic Vicars period. 

In refuting the first period the Dissident 
Munkacs Bishops were totally independent from 
the authority of the Eger Bishops, therefore, 
there cannot be any jurisdiction. 

To the second period we say: Bishop Par- 
thenius of Greek Rite was a Uniate appointed by 
the Pope and approved by the Magyar 
(Hungarian) King. Furthermore in his ap- 
pointment there is no mention of the Eger Bishop 
or the Eger Diocese. 

As for the third period: From whom did the 
Eger Bishop get the authority - the right, and 
who authorized the use of jurisdiction over an 
Apostolic Vicar? (171) The Apostolic Vicars are 
appointed by the Pope, therefore they are sub- 
jected directly to the Pope's authority. When 
Bishops of Eger used their authority over the 
Munkacs Apostolic Vicars, Bizanczi, Olsavszky 
etc., they established something, which is 
contrary to the Church Law. With their authority 
over the Munkacs Apostolic Vicars, they usurped 
authority of the Pope, the Councils and Papal 
Decrees. The Papal Vicars cannot be the 
Bishops' Vicars, because they receive their 
authority -- jurisdiction -- from the Pope. 
Therefore, the Latin Rite Bishops of Eger for- 
cefully used their authority over the Apostolic 
Vicars of Munkacs who due to their ec- 
clesiastical pressure were forced to accept their 
authority. Yes, pitifully we must say, they had no 
one to defend them, advise them nor to correct 
their status. 

The "Bulla" of Pope Pius IV, "Rom. Pon- 
tifex" says: The Greek Rite faithful as well as 
Bishops living in the city of a Latin Rite Bishop's 
See are subjected to the authority of the Latin 
Rite Bishop. 

171. HODINKA ANTAL. Op. Cit. P. 618 

110 



To refute the above "Bulla" of Pope Pius IV. 
Counsellor Conquelin presented the "Bulla"-s of 
Pope Leo X. and Pope Clement "Accepimus" to 
which the Greek Rite clergy referred to March 7, 
1715. The two Popes declared that the Latin Rite 
Bishops exercise authority over their subjects 
and the Greek Rite Bishops exercise over their 
faithful. (172) 

cardinal Lambruschine in his book about the 
Councils is of the opinion that the "Bulla" 
"Accepimus" does not apply to the Munkacs 
Episcopacy, because Pope Benedict XIV 
modified the "Accepimus" Bulla, with the "Et si 
pastoralis" Bulla. Furthermore the "Rom. 
Pontifex" Bulla is not speaking about the 
existing Greek Rite Bishops only of those who 
were banished, driven away from their Sees and 
situating to themselves in the territory of the 
Latin Rite Diocese - Bishop. This therefore 
cannot refer to the Munkacs Bishops. 

Rome finally was convinced that the demands 
of the Latin Rite Bishop of Eger were without 
foundation and contrary to the Church Law. The 
Pope was ready to fulfill the request of Queen 
Maria Terezia of Hungary, and agreed to erect a 
Canonical Episcopal See, but with two con- 
ditions: 

1. That the Bishop of Munkacs become a 
Suffragan to the Primate of Hungary. 

2. That each and every Greek Rite Bishop of 
Munkacs take a Profession of Faith individually. 

June 9th the Papal Nuncio reported to Rome, 
that Kaunitz advised him about the Queen's 
determination, that Queen Maria Terezia of 
Hungary accepts the conditions inasmuch as 
they agree with the laws of the Magyar 
(Hungarian) Government. 

September 1-st. it was reported that Queen 
Maria Terezia did not ask for unlimited in- 
dependence for the new Bishop See, only that he 
be not a dependent of the Bishop of Eger, 
because Bishop Grof Eszterhazy of Eger is of a 
forceful demanding nature with the result of 
alienating people. 

172. HODINKA ANTAL. Op. at P. 619 

111 



September 14th Queen Maria Terezia directed 
Kaunitz, the chancellor, to make the necessary 
moves in Rome to accept the Bulla. 

The Pope on October 10th stated his desire to 
hear the opinion of Bishop Grof Eszterhazy of 
Eger. 

Then Queen Maria Terezia staunchly 
protested against the delay, and openly told the 
Papal Nuncio that she would take the ultimate 
step relative to this matter. 

The Papal Nuncio quickly notified the Pope of 
Queen Maria Terezia's intentions. 

Five days later, November 6th, Queen Maria 
Terezia advised the Pope of her intentions. By 
this time the Pope had received the report of the 
Papal Nuncio. 

On November 17th the Pope agreed to give 
Munkacs clergy and its people their own Greek 
Rite Bishop with full powers. 

Upon the reception of Queen Maria Terezia's 
letter, the Pope on November 24th notified the 
Queen of his intentions relative to the Munkacs 
Eparchy, 

The first two Bishops of the Munkacs Eparchy 
enjoyed full Episcopal power. 

Bishop Bradacs Janos (1771-1773) and Bishop 
Bacsinszky Andras (1773-1809). 

November 24th, 1770 Pope Clement XIV, 
notified Queen Maria Terezia, that he is ready to 
establish canonically the Munkacs Eparchy, i.e., 
the Vicariate would become an Episcopal See 
enjoying autonomous power. 

There were some points in the document to 
which the Court of Queen Maria Terezia ob- 
jected : 

1. The Holy See and the King have the same 
rights over the Episcopacy of Munkacs as they 
have over all the others in Hungary. 

2. The city of Munkacs is proposed as the 
Episcopal See, but not elevated to it, which 
excludes even the shadow of doubt regarding the 
rights of the Pope or the King. 

3. The benefice is precisely written according 
to modification. 

112 



££§ 


O 




■ 




tfl PJD 


3Z 








MX3 


^ 








r- H m 










c * 


rr 








5 os 

Q ro 


X 

> 








sss 


> 








£3^ 


s 








p < 2! 

In hh co 










3£ 


-J 








>< 


w 






3 




^1 




CO 
M 


3 


i — * i — i i — i 

CO CO — s 


1 




s 


PS 


LiO »— ' ~-* 


J — 1 




o 


p 


-J O M 


-J 




13 




~J 




CO 


m 


i i > 


to 


1 — 1 




£: 


t-~ | » j_i 




~J 


o 


m 


CO CO CO 




er* 


"fl 


^ 


Ox Co O 




-j 




H 


-* Ji. co © 






5! 


i— i 
< 


JOHN 

JULIU 

ANTHO 

2a 


H 
EC 


j 




Z M "0 
-< > 


s 


** 


> 


TD 


fe 3 3 


"a 


to 


3 
5 


o 

M 

13 
i— 
C3 


W h- 1 


C 
< 




§ 




i — < 

n 




9 


tfi 




to 




-< 




1 — 1 i i i— * 


,_, 








ID CO CD 


CO 








i— > ^O -J 


©i 








W I- 1 .*». 


Oi 








i i * 

: — i . — . ^, 


(— « 








V£> VO 00 


CO 








K) M M3 


-4 








#» N3 t-^ 


•f- 











Bishop Paul P. Gojdich, OSBM. 
(1888-1960^ 



112b 



4. There is nothing mentioned about the right 
of appointment and establishment of the 
Munkacs Eparchy similar to other Episcopal 
Sees. 

5. The rights of the Munkacs Bishop are stated 
in detail in the territory of the Eger Diocese 
surpassing all the Uniates. The Bishop of Eger 
may not interfere in the rights of the Munkacs 
Bishop and vice versa. 

6. The Propaganda de Fide Congregation 
formulated the decrees, with precise directives 
to the new Bishop, and only those matters are to 
be upheld which are not contrary to the new 
Decree. The new Bishop is to strictly adhere to 
and uphold the Decree. (173) 

In the fourth paragraph, it is clearly shown 
that the Holy See's desire was to include the 
former practice of establishing new beneficies 
by the appointment of the King, as it was done at 
the Greek Rite Fogaras Episcopal See in 
Transylvania (Erdely). 

Vienna protested this point. It was also noted 
that the Holy See in its new Decree agreed that 
the King appoint the Munkacs Bishop, as he did 
appoint the Latin Bishops. This differs from the 
appointment of the Greek Rite Fogaras Bishop. 

The cost of the erecting Bulla of September 19, 
1971 was 4000 Florins. Queen Maria Terezia 
issued an order to pay the cost from the State 
Treasury instead of the Bishop, which bill was 
sent by Cardinal Albani to the State Treasury of 
Hungary October 18. On October 23rd the Holy 
Council's instructions were to send a copy to the 
Prince Primate of Esztergom, and if there was a 
vacancy to the Esztergom Chapter and one to 
Bishop Bradacs. 

In reference to Bishop Bradacs Janos, in 1764 
Bishop Olsavszky Mihaly recommended his 
appointment to Queen Maria Terezia as his 
coadjutor Bishop with the right os succession, to 
prevent Bishop Grof Eszterhazy from 

173. BAZILOVITS J. Vol. IV. pp. 34-40 

113 



nominating a Vicar of his choice. Queen Maria 
Terezia delayed the nomination. After the death 
of Bishop Olsavszky November 6, 1767, Bradacs 
Janos was nominated, and approved by the Pope 
on January 27, 1768. 

Pope Clement XIV on November 12, 1770 
expressed to the Queen his approval and con- 
firmation of the establishment of the Episcopal 
See of Munkacs with the request that the Queen 
recommend a candidate for the Episcopal Of- 
fice. 

Queen Maria Terezia on January 6, 1771 ap- 
pointed Father Bradacs Janos whom the Pope 
approved and^nfjrmed after much difficulty. 
Bishop fMiitttg' Janos was the first Bishop of 
MmlkacswvthfuirEpiscopalpower^ Regretfully. 
a snprt time later on July 4. 1772 he passed away 
to his eternal reward. Following his death the 
Queen appointed Father Bacsinszky Andras and 
on March «. 1773 the Pope approved and con- 
firmed the appointment. 

History noted that Bishop Olsavszky set the 
stitfie for the foundation of full Episcopal Power 
which the Munkacs Bishops were to enjoy, and it 
was further developed by Bishop Bacsinszky 
Andras with great and fruitful success. (174) 

Queen Maria Terezia was grateful to the 
Uhro-Rusins for their ardent support. The Uhro- 
Rusins had many times expressed themselves 
before the Queen especially in time of need, that 
they will always be ready to defend Her Majesty 
with their blood if necessary. "No sacrifice will 
be too great for us, when Your Majesty will turn 
to us for help." 

Queen Maria Terezia well rememoered these 
sincere and goodwill words of the Uhro-Rusins, 
always being ready to help the good people. 

THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE UNION WITH 
ROME IN HUNGARY AND POLAND 

The clergy were very happy with the Union 
with Rome, because they became equal with the 

114 



p 




The Greek Rite Catholic Bishops Residence and Cathedral Church in Ungvar 17? 2 " ^ 94 



•-■■- 







■■ Mm 

■ . ■ ;. ■.■•{■-ill 



Ex operc mtisivo Iti Basilica S, Pauli 

Romac 

CLEMENS PP. XIV 

( 19,28. V.U.176 — 22.IX.1774) 

a r i m i n en s i s 
<Vincentlus Antonius G a n g a n e 1 1 ;> 



114b 



Latin Rite Clergy, having the same rights and 
privileges 

The hour of disappointment came very soon, 
concerning religious and national questions. Day 
by day they became more and more oppressed. 
While Bishop Parthenius was living the con- 
ditions were not too bad, but when he died, his 
influence was gone, the Rite and the nationality 
began to decrease. This can be proven by 
statistics, showing the increase of the Latin Rite 
and the Hungarian nationality. True, this was 
not done in a few days by force, time did its work 
through the allurement of the Latin Rite, 
destroying the Rusins and their Rite and not 
permitting it even to grow. 

Where there is no nationality, there is no 
nation: where there is no political religious life, 
there is no nation. In this period the Rusins were 
not considered as nationals up to the time of 
Emperor Leopold II. They had no one in 
Parliament to represent and to defend them in 
cast 1 of necessity. The blame is placed on the 
V n ion with Rome. The Rusins became Greek 
Kile Catholics, consequently the Latin Rite 
representatives claimed to represent all the 
Catholics regardless of nationality. 

All this was contrary to the agreement, the 
contract made with Rome to equal with the Latin 
Rite, having the same rights and privileges. 
(175) 

The denationalization and the oppression of 
the Rite was done publicly by the Latin Rite 
Hierarchy, who stated let them become beggars 
and then they will become Catholics of the Latin 
Rite. In the XVI th century the Archbishop rf 
Esztergom would not admit this publicly not to 
scandalize the people, saying instead that these 
words concerned the Protestants, but in reality, 
he meant the Rusins. 

174. ARCHIVES OF BISHOP OF UNGVAR. 
Have the. appointment Bulla of Bishop Bradacs 
Janos and Bishop Bacsinszky Andras. 

175. MESZAROS KAROLY. Op. cit. p, tl9 

115 



The Union therefore did not bring betterment 
to the Rusins, it only made them stepchildren in 
the Catholic Church, losing their Rite and the 
ancient foundations, which were taken over by 
the Latin Rite Hierarchy. 

In the period of SS. Cyril and Methodius and 
later on in about 1204 after the Tatar invasions 
many monasteries and foundations of benefice 
were simply taken over by the Latin Rite 
Hierarchy. Justice would demand that if you 
deprive the Rusins of many of their rights at 
least do not take away from the Foundation 
benefice. Such injustice had driven the Rusins 
back to Schism. This fact can be proved in the 
diary of Bishop DeCamelis, which states that at 
the end of the XVIIth century there were Greek 
Rite parishes in Debreczen, Szolnok and Heves 
County. Even the Eger Diocese, and after the 
death of Bishop Bizanci they too returned to 
Schism. The same conditions prevailed in Szepes 
County. (176) 

Still, in 1701 Bishop DeCamelis, 
Jozef made his canonical visitation, so did 
Bishop Blazsovszky, Bishop Bizanci and Bishop 
Emanuel Olsavszky who reminded them to be 
faithful to the Greek Rite. These people of Szepes 
County in 1787 petitioned the authorities to be 
placed under the Administration of the Munkacs 
Eparchy. (They were under the Esztergom 
Diocese.) 

From Bishop DeCamelis to Bishop Bac- 
sinszky, the Bishops of Munkacs were only 
Vicars of the Eger Latin Rite Bishop, a status, 
which humiliated the Greek Rite. 

Before the Union they were independent, no 
one interfered in their administration. As soon as 
the Union was accepted, pressures came one 
after another, putting a burden on the Greek 
Rite, especially in matters of marriage. Yes, the 
Greek Rite became a serf of the Latin Rite 

176 BALUGYANSZKY ANDRAS. Eghazi 
Tortenetirat". p. 482 

116 



Hierarchy. Who would not be disturbed to see 
such an anomaly, that for centuries the Greek 
Rite Catholic people paid tithes to the Latin Rite 
Bishops and not to their own Bishop. All this was 
done during the feudal times, that the poor Rusin 
people had to pay even the Judges of nobility and 
their help, who in return did not protect them nor 
did they speak for their betterment. (177) 

Bishop Bacsinszky Andras in 1802 tried to stop 
this great injustice, but failed. The Greek Rite 
clergy did not even collect their clergy stipend 
congrua which was guaranteed to them by the 
Government. 

When Bishop Tara*szovics in 1847 requested 
the rights of the Greek Rite clergy, Bishop Ham 
Janos of Szatmar, Latin Rite, opposed the 
request. 

The Greek Rite was oppressed in Hungary, 
but not as mach as it was in Poland, where the 
Parliament in f717 gave out the following 
inhuman order to destroy the Greek Rite 
Catholic's ail together. (178) 
The order is as follows: 
'* It is the patriotic duty of all who con- 
sider themselves Poles to learn to despise and to 
persecute the Greek Rite, to use every means in 
their power against those who follow it, an- 
nihilate arid destroy them by means of the 
severest repression. So much the more, because 
of the similarity of the Ruthenian (Rusin) Rite to 
the Russian practice. Because these would 
rather adhere to Russia and weaken our state. I 
would favor the following practices. Employ 
none of the noblemen in public office, whether 
they are Uniates or schismatic, particularly if 
they are schismatic. Furthermore Poles should 
never mix, associate with Ruthenians in society. 
Should chance bring them together they should 
avoid conversation, avoid their person, never 
descend to friendliness. In this way they may be 

m. meszaros karoly. op. cit. p. 

178. MESZAROS KAROLY. Op. Cit pp. 123-127 

117 



induced to deny their Rite, to give it up, to act as 
though they had never been Ruthenians 
(Rusins). 

Rich landlords of the State should never 
employ Ruthenians (Rusins) especially not for 
such work as they are trained to perform, unless 
they can hope that they will abandon their Rite. 
In this manner, if they persist in their blind 
adherance, they will of necessity become so poor 
that they will be lost to the State or will be 
compelled to change their religious practices. 

Although the majority of the Ruthenians 
(Rusins), especially in cities built by the 
Russians, have beautiful property, you must so 
act that they will quickly become poor and 
stupid; that they do not get any money or help. 

The best way of effecting this is to have the 
landlords in these cities rent their property to the 
Jews, who, with their masterful craftiness, 
would gather all the profits and torment the 
Ruthenians (Rusins) with all kinds of exactions. 
In some of the cities, on the public estate and 
especially in the small towns, the local officials 
should compel the Ruthenians (Rusins) to do the 
most difficult jobs. In large cities, on the other 
hand, besides bringing in the Jews, Roman 
Catholics should be employed for all offices of 
merit. Public ordinance should be announced in 
Polish, never in Ruthenian (Rusin) language. 

With reference to the Rusin-Ruthenian priests 
and bishops, who are rather difficult to break, 
the following practices should be observed: 
Bishops should not be publicly installed for all to 
see. Priests should be so degraded that they will 
not be able to hold their heads, much less carry 
them on high. In the election of bishops, who are 
ranked as nobles let such a person be chosen who 
is a relative to some noble Roman Catholic 
family, so that the property he may accumulate 
during his lifetime, will be given to Roman 
Catholic heirs. Deny the Rusin bishop his seat in 
the Parliament and his vote, so that he may have 
■no influence whatsoever. 

118 



Let more influential Polish Bishops make it 
their duty to see that the Rusin-Ruthenian 
bishops, by order of the Pope, are governed by 
them. In this way through frequent contact, 
appearance and the visitation of churches the 
Rusin-Ruthenian will become accustomed to the 
authority of the Roman Church and will be in- 
clined to a change of Rite. 

As in the past, so in the future, strive to see 
that the village priest is generally uneducated. 
Prom this ignorance will come a lack of un- 
derstanding of the principles and laws of their 
Rite and the reason why they belong to the Greek 
Rite. Thus they will be unable to explain how and 
why it is true and right, nor the purpose of their 
Rite and will not be able to claim their people nor 
resist them with prudence when they are com- 
pelled to embrace the Roman Rite. 

A strict order must be given that_Rusin clergy 
do not share in any benefice whatsoever. Fur- 
ther, where they do function they must live at 
their own expense, obtain their own land and 
support their own families. 

The Bishops will so arrange that they be paid 
as little as possible for their administration of 
the Sacraments, nor should they be allowed to 
receive oxen, horses, cows, pigs and such other 
articles of property as they are accustomed to 
receive from their people. Under no cir- 
cumstances can the children of priests be 
allowed to inherit, as so far they have been 
allowed. All their offenses, rights, claims and 
causes are under the jurisdiction of the village 
authority and any resistance should be punished 
in the most severe fashion. Public notice must be 
given as to which son will inherit the priesthood 
of the father. He also is to be free. The others, as 
bond servants, are obligated to every type of 
bond service. They may live not in the cities, but 
only in villages, which they may never leave. 
Nor may they change their dwelling nor their 
position as bonded servants. Sons of priests who 
are preparing in school for the priesthood must 

119 



be held under the strictest discipline. If they are 
found unfit their case must be examined and 
then punished. Under such circumstances, he 
that is unfit for another career must be lined up 
for a fief's position. While they are continuing 
their education all means of irritation should be 
used in the school. Persecute them. Make it 
difficult for them. Teach religion in such a 
manner that they will be led to believe that the 
.Roman and Greek religion are the same and that 
a change is not a sin, buta gain. 

Should some become educated and cannot be 
persuaded not to become priests, they should be 
advised, by all means, to remain celibate, 
because they should be told, celibates are more 
respected and have more privileges. It may be 
arranged in this way that the people will be left 
without clergy as their spiritual advisers and of 
necessity will turn to the Latin priests. Because 
the Russian race has no outstanding class who 
would have the right to go to school then celibate 
priests will die out and we shall lose this touchy 
class. The personnel of the church, left to 
themselves, cannot remain without Latin 
priests. Once they are accustomed to them, with 
blind piety they will idolize and honor them as 
their own, and in a short time they will not even 
feel that they are Roman Catholics and no longer 
Greek Catholic. 

As far as circumstances permit the children 
of the peasants should be without education. 
Through political influence the Rusin people 
should be forced to quit their church, to make 
their religion and clergy unpopular. Of these not 
only should all kinds of scandalous, unpopular 
and dishonorable tales be spread, but in secret, 
evil and rebellious documents should be 
published, written under their names and on 
these pretexts they should be complaining of 
cross-examination and persecuted. 

In an especial manner, so as to make them 
ashamed of themselves, they should be ensnared 
in conversation, publicly and privately their way 

120 



of life should be abused, their ignorance in public 
ecclesiastical affairs ridiculed. As a con- 
sequence the clergy and people will be irritated, 
will be ready for revolution, especially in the 
Ukraine in Poldovia and Volchynia, so as to be 
attacked by armed forces and destroyed as a 
punishment. They can then be driven out and 
their places taken by Poles. In such fashion the 
Poles will break and destroy this element which 
is eating the vitals of the state, acting as a 
poisonous dividing force. In recovering the 
necessary liberty, this unity of religion and 
patriotism will give strength to our people, in 
strength victory, in reputation a lasting future... 

Sueh recommendations were utilized in 
Poland to suppress tne Greek Rite. On the other 
side of the border in Russia, though not so 
systematically and politically, but with the same 
type of impatience the Rusins who fostered the 
Greek Rite under the supervision of the Roman 
Church were persecuted. 

Poland whose sons, nobles and people ex- 
pressed such hatred in these provisions plunged 
into a political grave after these prescriptions, 
was unable to adopt the practices mentioned 
here, but Russia, with iron-handed severity used 
them against the Uniate Catholic Rusins- 
Ruthenians. The Czar's journey to Rome and his 
excuses to the Pope speak clearly 6T these 
persecutions and the restrictions laid on the 
Rusins between 1840 and 1846. Thanks to the 
Providence of God, the ideals of the new era lent 
such strength that religious and sectarian 
prejudices were overthrown. Tolerance, 
brotherly love and the holy warmth \>f freedom 
were stirred up and even in schismatic Russia 
more brotherly affection was generated towards 
tht Catholic Rusins in Poland. U79) 

179 MESZAROS KAROLY. Op. at. pp. 123-127 



121 



THIRD PERIOD FROM 1772-1922 

Bacsinszky Andras (1772-1809) was born in 
Venetine, Ung County, His father was a parish 
priest in this village. He was educated in Ungvar 
and in the seminary at Nagy Szombat (Trnava). 
He was unanimously elected as Bishop of 
Munkacs after the death of Bishop Bradacs in 
1773, and was approved by Pope Clement XIV 
and consecrated in the Emperor's Chapel, by 
Bishop Bozsicskovics Basil of the Koros 
(Krizevac) Eparchy. 

Bishop Bacsinszky Andras was extremely 
successful in his episcopal work and elevated the 
Eparchy both morally and materially. He 
received the Jesuit Monastery and church in 
Ungvar and made this his residence. He 
renovated the church to adapt it to the Greek 
Rite and then made it his Cathedral. He also 
received the Fort of Ungvar and established his 
seminary there. He obtained stipends for the 
maintenance of both the seminary and its 
professors. All of this was granted to him and the 
Eparchy by Queen Maria Terezia. 

To better administer the large Eparchy, 
Bishop Bacsinszky established a separate 
Vicariate in Maramaros Sziget, Maramaros 
County; another one in Szatmar, Szatmar 
County; and the third in Kassa (Kosice), Abauj 
County. The Vicariate of Kassa was eventually 
transferred to Eperjes (Presov), Saros County. 

Bishop Bacsinszky Andras was no doubt one 
of the greatest heads of the Eparchy of Munkacs. 
He died on December 19, 1809, and was buried in 
the Cathedral Church. 

After the death of Bishop Bacsinszky Andras 
and until 1816, the Eparchy was without a 
Bishop. It was during this time that the Eparchy 
of Eperjes (Presov) with its 194 parishes, was in 
the process of being established. Vicars were 
then in charge of administering the Eparchy. 
After the division of the Eparchy, Tarkovics 
Gyorgy became the Bishop of Eperjes. 

12? 



& 



THE EPARCHY OF MUNKACS 
TERRITORY IN 177 1 




ZJ 1 



THE EPARCHY OF MUNKACS 
TERRITORY IN 177 1 A-D. 

THE EPARCHY OF MUNKACS AND 
THE EPERJES EPARCHY IN 
1818 A . D . a*s.i>*-» 




We must also mention Bishop Bradacs Mihaly 
(1809-1814) who served as Bishop Bacsinszky's 
auxiliary Bishop. After the death of Bishop 
Bacsinszky, Canon Kutka Janos became the 
Vicar General and only after his death in 1812 did 
the Chapter elect Bradacs Michael as a Vicar 
General. Tarkovics Gyorgy succeeded him as a 
Vicar General. 

Pocsi Etek (1816-1836). After the division of 
the Munkaes Eparchy and the establishment of 
the Eperjes Eparchy, he became Bishop. As a 
result the Vicariate of Eperjes was dissolved. 

Bishop Popovics Basil (1837-1864), born 
September 12, 1796 in Komjat, Ugocsa County, 
where his father was a pastor. Educated in 
Ungvar, he studied theology in Budapest, where 
he also received the Doctorate of Philosophy. He 
was ordained in 1820. In 1822 served as a 
secretary to Bishop Tarkovics Gyorgy of 
Eperjes; in 1835 became a Canon of the Eperjes 
Chapter. In 1837 appointed Bishop of Munkaes 
Eparchy by the Pope, was consecrated Bishop in 
Lemberg (Lvov), Galicia, by Metropolitan 
Levicky. 

As a great Rusin patriot the Bishop worked 
hard for his people, and his hard work caused 
many conflicts with the Hungarian Government. 

In 1863 the Greek Rite Catholic Hungarians 
petitioned Bishop Popovics for permission, to 
have Divine. Services in Hungarian language 
The bishop in turn sent this petition to Home in 
November 11, 1863. A reply came in the negative. 
He died on October 19, 1864 in Ungvar, and was 
buried in the Cathedral Church. 

Bishop Pankovics Istvan (1867-1874). Born 
October 29, 1820 in Velejte, Zemplen County, 
where his father Peter was a pastor. He was 
educated in Ungvar and Nagy Szombat (Tr- 
nava). Ordained August '27. i&>l. He soon 
became an instructor of children in a nobleman's 
household. After the death of Bishop Popovics, 
he was appointed a Bishop of the Munkaes 
Eparchy, and consecrated May 5, 1867. During 
his term in office, many churches and schools 

123 




124 



were built in the Eparchy. He also tried to in- 
troduce the Gregorian Calendar, but failed, due 
to serious opposition, and the Calendar question 
was dropped. 

Being an enthusiastic Hungarian in 1873 be 
established the Hajdudorog Vicariate for the 
Hungarians. Bishop Pankovics died August, 
1874. 

In 1874 Father Joann Duliskovics compiled a 
very valuable historical book: 

"ISTORICESKIJA CERTY UHRORUSINOV". 
Bishop Pankovics Istvan forbade Father Joann 
Duliskovics to finish his historical work, and in 
1874 to top his order, even punished the good 
man, good priest for his work, (180) which did 
not please the Bishop. Why did Bishop Pankovics 
stop the historical work? Because, he did not 
want Father Duliskovics to write about his policy 
of Magyarization, and how he was destroying the 
Rusin language of the people for whom he was 
appointed Bishop. A shepherd always defends 
his flock, but not Bishop Pankovics and others 
who were interested more in politics than the 
good of the people, whom they were to lead, 
instruct and built up their future. 

History tells us about many such leaders, to 
instruct us, not to follow such personalities, 
because sooner or later their work, deeds, will 
appear on the pages of history and this work will 
be condemned. 

There are also certain leaders of people, who 
speak about customs, traditions, heritage of the 
people, but do not name the child by its name. 
What can people expect from such leaders, who 
neither think nor feel or keep the nationality and 
customs of the people entrusted to their care. 

A historian must purge himself of shame, 
hard feelings, unpleasantness even if it is 
painful, etc., to deal honestly with history. 

180. KONDRATOVIC IRENIJ. "1st. Podkar- 
patskoj Rusy" Uzhorod, 1930, p. 92. 

125 



Alexander Duchnovich said: "Not to know 
what happened before our birth, is to remain an 
infant". Infancy is a political slavery which no 
one wants. Even God did not "want us to be 
slaves, giving us a free will. Let us learn from 
the past to have a better future. 

Bishop Pasztelyi Janos (1875-1891). Born May 
8, 1826 in Velejte, Zemplen County; his mother 
was the sister of Bishop Pankovics. Educated in 
Ungvar, ordained in 1849. Became a Vicar of 
Maramaros County and a member of the 
Hungarian Parliament. Appointed a Bishop of 
Munkacs Eparchy March 15, 1875. During his 
office, the Magyarization was spreading very 
strongly. Died in March 24, 1891. 

Bishop FirczakGyula (1891-1912) Born August 
22, 1836 in Hudl'ovo, Ung County, where his 
father Basil was a pastor. Educated in Ungvar, 
Theology in Vienna, where he received a Doc- 
torate. Ordained September 26, 1876, and in 1887 
became a member of the Hungarian Parliament, 
speaking several European languages. In 
December 17, 1891 became a Bishop of the 
Munkacs Eparchy. During his office the Bishop 
held two Synods; in 1891 and in 1903 to strengthen 
the faith and great love for the Greek Rite. Died 
on June 1, 1912. 

Bishop Papp Antal (1912-1924). Born 
November 17, 1867 in Nagy Kallo, Szabolcs 
County, where his father Antal was a pastor. 
Educated in Ungvar, Locse, Theology in 
Budapest. He was a Hungarian national, but 
always chose his consultors and advisors from 
among the clergy who were great defenders of 
the Rusin people and their language. He himself 
spoke poorly in Rusin, but always tried to please 
the Rusins and spoke to them in the Rusin 
language as best as he could. On July, 1924 Rome 
transferred him to Miskolc, Hungary, where he 
became an Apostolic Administrator of the 
Miskolc territory. The Bishop himself petitioned 
Rome for his transfer, not willing to take a 
pledge of loyalty to the Czechoslovak Govern- 
ment. He died December 24, 1945 in Miskolc. 

126 



complaints, gave them directives and tried to 
harden them in their faith. In many places he 
met with the clergy also, advising them about 
the serious situation and inspiring them to 
preach the Word of God. 

In the beginning ol 1946 a Synod of Lvov was 
held, liquidating the Union with Rome in Galicia. 
Pamphlets were written about the Union by Rev. 
Dr. Gabriel Kostelnyk and Rev. Vladimir 
Rosovic, which were spread throughout the 
Munkacs Eparchy. In this pamphlet the faithful 
and the clergy were invited to follow the Galicia n 
Synod by joining the Russian Orthodox Church. 

One evening in March, 1946 Bishop Romzsa 
was ordered to appear the following morning at 
the National Council, to discuss the affairs of the 
Greek Catholic Church, with a special deputy 
from Kiev. The Bishop was accompanied by 
Msgr. Alexander Chira and Rev. Alexander 
Punyko. 

The deputy listed the accusations against the 
Catholic Church and the Greek Catholic Church, 
denouncing the bishop and the clergy as the 
enemies of progress and communism. The 
Communists hoped to force the Bishop and his 
companions into repentance, by renouncing their 
alliance with a foreign Church, and recognizing 
the Patriarch of Moscow. 

Finally the Deputy openly informed Bishop 
Romzsa that the existence of the Greek Catholic 
Church in the USSR, was illegal; therefore ac- 
cept freely the Orthodoxy, or you will be forced 
to do it. The good Bishop replied "I will rather 
die than do that". 

The Communists realizing that they could not 
break the fearless Bishop Romzsa, they planned 
his liquidation. On October 26, 1947 Bishop 
Romzsa blessed the church in Lavka, Bereg 
County. The following day accompanied by two 
priests was returning to Uzhorod, when an ar- 
mored military truck plowed into the horse- 
drawn carriage of the Bishop. The people later 
found Bishop Romzsa and his companions lying 

129 



in the ditch injured. They took them to the 
Munkacevo Hospital. Here they soon began to 
recover. However, the Basilian Sister who took 
care of Bishop Romzsa was replaced by an 
unknown nurse. On the morning of November 1, 
1»47 Bishop Theodore Romzsa was found dead. 
He was poisoned in the Hospital. - (182) 

THE SHORT HISTORY OF THE 

MUNKACS EPISCOPAL LIBRARY 

Although no document can be found as to the 
Library's foundation, there are some sources 
which note, that in the Ungvar territory the 
Episcopal Library was the only Library. At a 
meeting on September 28, 1775 the Vice-regent, 
Lord Lieutenant of the Committee of Education 
proposed that the Episcopal Library should be 
opened to the nobility, because there were no 
books available except the ones in this Episcopal 
Library. Since then over almost two hundred 
years passed and history reveals to us that from 
Eperjes iPresov> to Sarospatak, and from 
Szatmar to Maramaros Sziget there was no 
library only the Episcopal Library of the 
Munkacs Eparchy. 

We may say that the Episcopal Library was 
established in August 1775, when Bishop Bac- 
sinszky Andras combined a Bishop Olsavszky 
Emmanuel's Library with the Jesuit Fathers 
Library of Ungvar. When Ihese libraries were 
established, no one knows. 

We know that Bishop Elszavszky Emmanuel 
became a Bishop of the Munkacs Eparchy 
March 12, 1743, and died November 5, 1767. 
During his 24 years as Bishop, he established the 
Seminary at Munkacs and also the Cathedral 
Church. In the first two years of his episcopacy 

18 1 PUNY KO ALEXANDER. Op. cit. pp 15, 16 
Slivka John. "The Munkacs Eparchy" 
manuscript 

130 



Bishop Olszavszky Emmanuel visited all the 
parishes in the thirteen Counties: 1. Szepes, 2. 
Saros, 3. Gomor, 4. Torna, 5. Abauj, 6. Borsod, 7. 
Zemplen, 8. Szabolcs, 9. Ung, 10. Bereg, 11. 
Ugocsa, 12. Szatmar, 13. Maramaros. In Szat- 
mar and the Transylvania territory the Bishop 
re-united many Roumanians to the Catholic 
Church, who had become schismatics, 
dissidents. With the growth of the Eparchy the 
income also grew, and having financial support 
he was buying books to build up a library . 

On September 21, 1763 Bishop Olsavszky 
Emmanuel made his will (testament) in which 
he does not mention his library. However, he had 
two other Wills made, in 1762 and 1767, in which 
he mentions the library. 

Yes, the good Bishop at times deprived 
himself of many things of life and bought books 
for the library, because his predecessors did not 
leave him books. 

It is unbelievable that no books were left to 
Bishop Olsavszky Emmanuel, because since 
1458 (i.e. over 300 years) there were bishops in 
the Munkacs Eparchy. How then is it, that no 
books were left? To uphold the above statement: 
we note that in a Letter of complaint 1597 against 
Rakoczy Zsigmond it is stated that Bishop Basil 
of Ardanhaza and his fellow monks took with 
them from the Monastery: oxen, sheep, cows, 
horses, spoons, silver chalices and other 
movable property. (186) 

Furthermore in 1642 at the Second Bereg 
County investigation, the witnesses testified, 
that as many times a Bishop was forced out of 
the Monastery, movable property was tran- 
sferred to the Fort. True, the 1597 Letter of 
Complaint, nor the witnesses of the investigation 

186. HODINKA ANTAL. "A munkacsi Gorog 
Katolikus Puspokseg Tortenete". p. 683. Primate 
Kutassy of Hungary wrote in 1S97 September 3. 
Every movable property was taken by the Order 
men when they left, 

131 



do not mention books among the moveable 
property, but if we could find books, manuscripts 
in poor village churches, then we certainly could 
find some books among the Bishop's belongings. 

It is a pity that we have only two records of 
Episcopal books. Will of Bishop Blazsovszky 
Gyorgy of December 20, 1742, in which he says: 
"My confessor may take as many books of mine 
as he wishes, also give some books to Father 
John which he needs and the books of Rakovecky 
are to remain in the Monastery. ( 187) The will 
did not say who Father Janos (John) was and 
Rakovecky, nor which Monastery it speaks of. 
Most probably it speaks of the Kis Berezna Ung 
county Basilian Monastery books and Father 
(John) Janos, who was Rakovecky and in which 
Monastery he was, it does not state, The only 
thing is known 'that during an epidemic 
Rakovecky moved from Munkacs to Kis Berezna 
Monastery, where he died. (1686 or 1693?) 

The second information about the Episcopal 
Library is found in a book ( Munkacs Cathedral 
Library remnant) where the names of Bishops 
are listed and is on the last page of the book 
dated 1741, February 13th. (188) 

The above note was made only, because 
Bishop Olsavszky Emmanuel said that neither 
his predecessors, nor anyone else left any books 
to him. 

In 1751 Bishop Olsavszky Emmanuel was 
ordered by Queen Maria Terezia, to leave the 
Munkacs Monastery and move to the city 
proper ana live there. The question is: Did he 
lako with him the books of Rakovecky and the 
Cathedral Library or not"? 

hi shop Bizanczy made two contacts with the 
iiaxiliaii Fathers. The iirst one was made April 
Id. 17 Iti. This was a two-sided contract, forced 
upoitltihrby BibliOp KVdtRi.y 01 the Eger Diocese, 
to renounce all the rights to property. The 

187. DULISKOVICS J. Op. cit. Vol. HI, p. 124 

188. DULISKOVICS J. Op. cit. Vol. III. p. 126 

132 



second contract was made in February 16, 1729 
(189) with the Basilian Fathers stating that all 
the property belongs to the Basilian Order and 
not to the Bishop. 

Therefore Bishop Olsavszky Emmanuel can 
rightly say that his predecessors did not leave 
any books for him. Bishop Olsavszky in order to 
protect the books from destruction and loss, 
made the following agreement with the Basilian 
Fathers of Pocs: (190) 

1. The Basilian Provincial and the Fathers of 
the Order are to guard the books in the 
Monastery. 

2. That the validly appointed Bishop and his 
co-workers may have use of the books or borrow 
them with the knowledge oi me nasi nan 
Provincial. 

3. The Order members may use the books 
with the Provincial's knowledge, even in their 
rooms. 

4. The Eparchial seminarians studying in 
Nagyszombat (Trnava) may use the books with 
the knowledge of the Basilian Provincial and the 
Bishop. They may take them home too, giving a 
promissory note, that a lost book or books will be 
replaced. 

5. According to the above provisions, his 
cousins John and Mary may also have use of the 
books. 

6. The borrower obligates himself, that the 
book will be returned. Generally it is understood, 
that no one will be denied the use of books who 
wishes to learn. 

Bishop Emmanuel wished to spend his last 
years in Pocs, but God had other plans for him, 
but he was buried in Pocs, i.e. Mariapocs, 
Szabolcs County. 

When Bishop Olsavszky Emmanuel built the 
Seminary and the Cathedral church he changed 
his will and in 1767 he willed his library to the 

189. DULISKOVICS J. Op. cit. Vol. HI. p. 126 

190. HODINKA ANTAL. Op. Cit. p. 687. 

133 



Cathedral and Seminary, where the books were 
to be used by the Bishop, the seminarians and by 
his cousins. 

History is a teacher of life. All things are to be 
done in the proper form and order, named and 
dated to supply sources for the future 
generations. As in the past the people were 
forgetful, their thoughts ran away with them and 
instead of putting them down in black and white 
to stay, the word flew away, but the script 
remained. Kucn carelessness is seen even today. 
How many organizations, institutions do not 
have their history put down in black on white? 
They had no time for the Minutes of the occasion, 
institution, organization. 

THE HISTORY OP THE AUTHENTICITY OF 
THE MIRACULOUSLY WEEPING 

THEOTOKOS ICON OF MARIA POCS. 1696 

Two hundred and seventy-eight years ago ( in 
1974) Pocs, Szabolcs County, Hungary, was a 
little village in the midst of little pools, puddles, 
surrounded with bushes as a little bird's nest in 
the Nyirseg. For the dwellers' spiritual need, the 
center was the little wooden church, which was 
in the middle of the village. It was built for the 
Greek Rite Catholics, named as St. Michael the 
Archangel Church. This little wooden church 
stood until 1715, when Bishop Olsavszky Mihaly, 
Greek Rite Catholic Bishop of Munkacs Eparchy 
built for the Weeping Theotokos, the Virgin Mary 
of Pocs, a large stone church to accommodate 
the pilgrims, who came to pray and petition the 
Weeping Mother of God to intervene for them to 
obtain the grace of God for their many needs. 

When was the little wooden church built, no 
one knows, there are no records of its erection. 
The iconostasis, which divides the Sanctuary, 
most probably was built when the church was 
erected. These people were poor, but built a 
home for God and an iconostasis; they did not 
say: "our finances will not permit us to build an 

134 



iconostasis . " The iconostasis has its purpose in 
the Greek Rite regardless of cost, we will have 
one, and they had one. The icons on the 
iconostasis were painted on wooden boards. One 
of the four main icons is that of the Theotokos - 
Bohorodica, the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of 
God. 

During the occupation of Hungary by the 
Turks, which lasted for 150 years, the Country 
was destroyed. This was followed by the strict 
oppression by Austria. The suffering people of 
Hungary one day arose from their slumber; who 
are we to trust? We cannot trust other 
nationalities, foreign kings. In their distress they 
turned to the Heavenly Queen, the Theotokos- 
Bohorodica for Her protection, praying: "Where 
mankind cannot help, Your power do not break; 
help us now Mary". 

Behold in 1696 the Blessed Virgin Mary, 
Theotokos. choose this little wooden church of 
Pocs, where Her image on the iconostasis 
adorned the iconostasis and the church, and the 
devout children prayed for her intercession, to 
be near her children. 

In 16% on November 4, a Sunday, a miracle 
was seen. The icon of little value, the image of 
the Theotokos, painted on a wooden board, began 
to weep. This weeping icon, made the icon a 
miraculous icon and its church a place for 
pilgrims, where in the past 278 years devout 
pilgrims travelled by foot from distant villages 
and cities, to see the miraculous icon of the 
Theotokos and seeking consolation, help and 
devoutedly believing in the power of the weeping 
Theotokos. 

WHAT HAPPENED IN POCS 
AND HOW? 

On Sunday, November 4, 1696, during the 
Divine Liturgy in the Greek Rite Catholic Church 
in Pocs, Szabolcs County, Hungary, a fifty-year 
old Eory Mihaly, a farmer, saw the weeping of 
the Theotokos icon for the first time. As the tears 
were rolling from Her eyes, he did not believe his 

135 



own eyes, saying to himself, maybe I do not see 
well. Soon he called the attention of the piously 
singing Molnar Janos, Molnar Simon and 
Meszaros Matyas, who were in the 40's. They too 
saw the miraculous weeping, the flow of tears 
from both eyes of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the 
Theotokos. (193) 

THE KLOKOCSO CHURCH 
THE ICON 
The weeping of an icon, such an apparition, 
never had been known. In those years the Greek 
Rite Rusin people living under the North- 
Eastern Southern slopes of the Carpathian 
mountains were under the authority of the Or- 
thodox Church, then signed a Union with Rome 
in 1646. Yes the forgotten children of Cyril and 
Methodius were left alone for many many years, 
fell into the arms of the Orthodox Church, 
without their own fault, not knowing that the tie 
with Rome was broken, but the Theotokos did not 
forget about them. The devout people wished to 
serve God in the way of the Greek Rite. Time 
came when from Serbia arrived a bishop and 
priests, who administered in the Greek Rite to 
their spiritual needs, whom they accepted. 

At this time the village of Klokocso, Zemplen 
County, Hungary, had a little wooden church 
where the icon of the Theotokos on the 
iCJG iconostasis began to weep. This was in the year;, 
of 1646, when the 63 priests signed the Unionn 
with Rome. 

The news of the weeping Theotokos came also 
to Rakoczy Ferenc II. in his Sarospatak, Zemplin 
County Hungary palace. He at once sent out a 
Jesuit Father to Klokocso, to find out about the 
fact of the weeping icon. When the apparition 
was proven, Rakoczy Ference II, had ordered a 
copy made of this icon of the Theotokos and took 
the original with his whole household from Borsi, 
Zemplen County (a few kilometers from 

193. HODINKA ANTAL. "A Mafiapocsi 
Kegykepunk Hiteles Tortenete. p. 49. 



136 



Satoralja Ujhely.) accompanied it on foot in a 
procession to the city of Munkacs and there he 
placed the Miraculous Icon of the Theotokos on 
the main altar of the fort church. <194) 
MARIA POCS CHURCH AND 
MONASTERY 

In Pocs the Theotokos icon was painted ac- 
cording to the Eastern style as the Theotokos 
holding the infant Jesus in her arms. For the first 
time November 4 to 19th, 1696, during the 
fourteen days the tears were continually flowing, 
so that the devout faithful held their fine linen 
and silk kerchiefs to collect the crystal clear 
glittering tears, which wetted their kerchiefs. 
These tears not only healed and helped the 
owners, but many sick people who lived far 
away, by touching the wetted kerchiefs. 

These suffering good people saw a historical 
apparition of Klokocso's weeping icon of the 
Theotokos to reappear in Pocs, and believed that, 
the Theotokos-Bohorodica is wishing to prove 
her heavenly patronage to them. 

The news of the miraculously weeping 
Theotokos icon of Pocs moved not only the 
peasant people, but also the nobility, in- 
telligentia, who flocked to the wooden church of 
Pocs. The first one to visit the miraculously 
weeping icon of the Theotokos was the Austrian 
General of the Army stationed in Tokay for the 
Tisza river territory Grof Corbelli J. Andras with 
his officers, and the Vice-county Lieutenant 
Krucsay. 

Our Greek Rite Catholic Bishop Decamelis J. 
Jozsef in whose territory the Pocs parish was 
located, in the Munkacs Eparchy, did not make 
the investigation of the Weeping Theotokos, but 
Bishop Fenyessy of Eger Diocese ordered the 

194. HODINKA ANTAL. Op. cit. p. 49 

KRAJNYAK GAEOR DR. "A mariapocsi 

Kegykep eredete". Mariapocsi Naptar, 1929. 
SKINTA J. STEPHEN OSBM. "The Shrine 

of our Weeping Mother of MARIAPOCS, N.Y. 

1973. p. 44. 

137 



investigation sending out Canon Csehre Jozsef of 
the Eger Diocese Chapter, the Szabolcs County 
Archdean and Fr. Daminani Andras, pastor of 
the Tokay Latin Rite Church, to make the in- 
vestigation. The minutes of this miraculously 
weeping Theotokos were presented January 2, 
1698 in Eger to Pettes Andras, Archpriest, for 
approval by the Church authorities. Why didn't 
Bishop De Camelis order the investigation? 
Because, he was the Eastern Rite Vicar to the 
Eger Bishop. 

This weeping icon of Pocs was to be tran- 
sferred to Vienna, by the order of Emperor King 
Leopold I., as we believe it to be. It was placed in 
the St. Stephen First Martyr Church, at the 
entrance on the right side altar. 

When the miraculously weeping icon of Pocs 
arrived in Vienna, it was carried to most of the 
churches in that city in Austria. Taking part in 
the procession was Emperor Leopold and the 
pious people of that city. The procession lasted 
for 36 hours, during which time the people were 
praying and singing hymns, and especially 
pleading to conquer their enemies, the Turks. On 
September 11, 1697atZenta the Hungarian Army 
Won a great victory. This victory according to 
the belief of the faithful occurred because God 
had granted this great favor, through the in- 
tercession of the Weeping Theotokos in Pocs, the 
village was renamed Maria pocs. (IS 5) 

The original icon of the weeping Theotokos 
was copied, repainted in Barcza, Abauj County 
which is near the city of Kassa, when the 
miraculous icon was being transported to 
Vienna. (195A) 

One copy was placed in the Jesuit Church in 

195. KRAJNYAK GABOR Dr. Op. cit. 
Mariapocsi Naptar 1929. 

195fc.A. NAGY SZENT BAZIL RENDJE 
MARIAPOCSON. "Mariapocs" Nyiregyhaza. 
1928. p. 5. » 

SZENTGYORGYI JORDAN KAROLY. "A 
Sziizanya Konyei". Stephaneum. p. 6. 
138 



Kassa, the second in the Kisfalu chapel and the 
third in Pocs. It is alleged that the original was 
taken to Vienna, Austria, where it was copied the 
second time. Before this miraculous icon the 
devout people prayed, begging the Theotokos to 
intervene for them and hear their petitions. 

It was alleged that the original icon of the 
weeping Theotokos was taken to Vienna . But to 
our surprise, the miraculous icon when it wept in 
August of 1715 and in a very cold winter of 1905, 
was not the icon in Vienna, nor Kassa, neither in 
Kisfalu, but in Mariapocs. 

The Archpriest of the Eger Diocese had or- 
dered the investigation of the second weeping of 
August 1715, sending out to Mariapocs Fr. 
Lorinczy Gyorgy, pastor of Mad; Francz 
Matyas, pastor of Tally a, to the investigating 
hearings. As a result of these testimonies the 
Eger Latin Kite Bishop Grot Erdody Antal gave 
permission to revere, honor the icon of the 
weeping Theotokos in Mariapocs. 

In 1715 Bizanczi Gyorgy, Vicar of the Munka'cs 
Episcopal See, when he heard about the second 
weeping, while he was stationed in Kallo, was 
over taken so by the news of the second weeping, 
that he went to Mariapocs and built a home for 
himself near the church. His successor, Bishop 
Blazsovszky, and especially Bishop Olsavszky 
"Miliary, continually were striving to have a 
proper place for the weeping Icon of the 
Theotokos. 

Many people were cured there miraculously. 
The church was built and was given over to the 
Order of St. Basil the Great Fathers. The two- 
steepled church still stands with its steeples as if 
it was reaching with its hands to heaven. Near it 
is the monastery of the Order of St. Basil the 
Great which for centuries served the pilgrims in 
their spiritual needs. 

So it be, the little village of Pocs, and its 
church became a Basilica and a place for 
pilgrims of the Rusin, Hungarian, and Rumanian 
Greek Rite Catholic people and finally a 

139 



pilgrimage place for all, to pray and petition the 
Theotokos to intervene for them. 

In 1776 the daughter of Grof Barkoczi Janos of 
Szabolcs County, was very ill and could not stard 
on her feet. They too went to Mariapocs humbly 
imploring the intercession of the Weeping 
Theotokos. The daughter kissed the icon and was 
instantly cured. 

This testimony was given in writing by the 
girl's mother. 

In the Mariapocs Basilica we may see two 
crutches, which were the possession of Grof 
Karolyi Ferenc, who out of gratitude for his 
miraculous cure, rewarded the Basilica and 
founded the monastery of the Order of St. Basil 
the Great Fathers in Mariapocs. (196) 

There were many and many miracles per- 
formed through the intercession of the Weeping 
Theotokos of Mariapocs, which are not 
documented, and only the Good Lord knows how 
many more miracles took place. 

THE EPARCHY OF EPERJES 
tPRESOV) 

On November 3, 1B15 Emperor Ferenc Jozsef 
I. divided the Munkacs Eparchy on account of 
political reasons, and erected the Eparchy of 
Eperjes (Presov). 

It is known that the Union with Rome was 
established in Hungary. The Rusins, 
Roumanians and some Serbians in the XV-XVIth 
century escaped from the invading Turks and 
settled in Chorvatia (Croatia) and Slovania. For 
their spiritual needs there were three Epar- 
chies : in Munkacs for the Rusins, in Balazsfalva, 
Transylvania for the Roumanians, and for the 
Serbs, Chorvats in Korbs (Krizevac). 

In the remarks of Bishop De Camelis dated 
October 17, 1692 we find mention of a Roumanian 

196. SKINTA ISTVAN OSBM. The shrine of our 
Weeping Mother of Mariapocs". N.Y. 1973. p. 44 

140 



monk from Debreczen, who came to the bishop to 
pledge loyalty for himself and his people, who 
were subjects to the Eparchy of Nagy Varad. 
(183). 

The Rusins of Transylvania subjected 
themselves to the Roumanian Bishop of 
Balazsfalva when in 1721 the Pope named the 
Bishop Episcopus Ruthenorum, and only after 
this name followed the name Valachorum, 
Cascianorum, Episcopum Rumun, Serb, etc., 
those who used the Greek Rite in this territory of 
Transylvania. (184) 

In the remarks of Bishop DeCamelis dated 
1712, we find evidence that the Munkacs Eparchy 
extended from the Poprad to the Koros river. 
(185) 

The territory of Munkacs Eparchy had 31 
Archpriests with 769 parishes. This statement 
however is not exactly correct, because the 
territory of Southern Saros County, the Southern 
part of Zemplen County, the whole of Abauj and 
Maramaros Counties were not included at that 
time 

We must remember that there were times 
when religion was identified with nationality, but 
when the National development was stopped, the 
same happened to the religion; instead of 
making progress both regressed. The Munkacs 
Eparchy for a half century was a Vicariate of 
Eger Diocese. Finally because of the good will of 
Queen Maria Terezia the Munkacs Eparchy 
became independent, a self-governing Eparchy. 
The Seat of the Munkacs Eparchy was tran- 
sferred to Ungvar (Uzhorod). The Jesuit 
monastery and church in this city were given to 
the Munkacs Bishop, for his residence and 
Cathedral, the Ungvar Fort for a seminary and 
also land in Toplic, for the upkeep of the Epar- 
chy's institutions. 

183. BAZILOVITS J.- Op. cit. Vol. II. p. 8s 

184. Wolf S. "De Vestiges Ruthenorum in 
Transylvania." Cibini 1882. 

185. HODINKA NATAL. Op. cit. p. 587 

141 



In 1773 a Vicariate was established in 
Maramaros and Szatmar Counties with a self- 
ruling consistory; in 1778 the Kassa (Kosice) 
Vicariate was established embracing the 
territory of the following Counties: Szepes, 
Saros, Gomdr, Abauj, Borsod, and the Northern 
part of Zeraplen County. Kassa became the Seat 
of this Vicariate. Here, we must make a note, 
that until 1803 there was no Latin Rite Bishop in 
Kassa. According to the King's Decree the Vicars 
were to be appointed from the members of the 
Munkacs Chapter of Canons. 

The first Vicar appointed for Kassa, was 
Pasztelyi Janos, who never resided in this city. 
His successor was Bradacs Mihaly appointed in 
January 13, 1790. He too governed the Vicariate 
from K&Ves (Kamienka) his family estate in 
Szepes County, to which he gave more care than 
to the Vicariate. These conditions encouraged 
the thought of the establishing of the Eperjes 
(Presov) Eparchy. 

When the news about the Kassa Vicariate 
spread, the Government began to make plans to 
divide the Munkacs Eparchy . This was 
motivated by political consideration. The 
Counties of Maramaros, Szatmar, and Hajdu 
Counties were attached to the Nagy Varad 
Eparchy and the Counties of Szabolcs, Borsod, 
the Southern part of Zemplen and Abauj 
Counties to Koros (Krizevac) Eparchy. Soon the 
Latin Rite Bishop of Eger spoke up and 
demanded the Franciscan monastery in Kassa 
for his seminary. 

At this time the Civil Authorities in Eperjes 
began to claim Kassa the Seat of Vicariate. The' 
city of Eperjes offered the Minorite monastery 
and church for the Vicariate. 

Finally, King Ferenc Jozsef in November 3, 

1815 decided on the division of the Munkacs 
Eparchy, by establishing as Vicariate of Kassa 
an Eparchy. To satisfy the King on January 26, 

1816 Bishop Grof Erdody of Eger recommended 
two men for .the office of bishop, Alexius Pocsi 

142 



and Simeon Brana a Chapter member of the 
Nayy Va'rad Chapter and for the Eparchy of 
Eperjes Tarkovics Gregory and Olsavszky Janos 
a chapter member of the Munkacs Eparchy. The 
Canonization - establishment of the Eperjes 
Eparchy was approved by Pope Pius VII on 
September 22, 1818. 

Not to let the Roumanians interfere with these 
plans and to have a member of their Chapter a 
Bishop in the Munkacs Eparchy, the Govern- 
ment cut off 27 parishes from the Munkacs 
Eparchy and added them to the NagyVarad 
Eparchy. Most of the faithful in these parishes 
were of Roumanian nationality and some 
Rusins, who became Roumanians. 

Persons who became bishops of the Eperjes 
Eparchy were always obligated to the Govern- 
ment. Still the majority of these men professed 
that a person born of one national group, will 
always die a member of that national group. This 
is a natural law, from which a person cannot 
escape. He may change his nationality, but 
history will point out his real identity. Fortunate 
and progressive is the nation whose sons and 
daughters do not forget this natural law. To 
change nationality, noUto keep your own, is a 
shameful deed and it reflects the person's 

THE FIRST BISHOP OF THE EPERJES 
EPARCHY, BISHOP GREGORY TARKOVICS 

Bishop Gregory Tarkovics was born in 
Pasika, Bereg County, November 8, 1754. His 
father Andrew was a Cantor, his mother's 
maiden name was Anna Hanykovszky. Gregory 
studied in Ungvar, took the philosophical course 
in Nagy Varad. Ordained January 1, 1779, he 
became a professor in the Munkacs seminary, 
where he taught for 14 years. In 1793 he was 
appointed a pastor to Dorog; four years later a 
pastor at Ungvar and in 1803 he became a censor 
of Old-SIovanic books at the University Press in 
Buda. After the death of Michael Bradacs, he 

143 



became the Vicar of the Kassa Vicariate and 
Vicar of the Chapter until the partition of the 
Munkacs Eparchy, by forming the Eperjes 
Episcopal See. 

Gregory Tarkovics was a humble man, and 
stood far away from the vanity of the world, and 
lived a monk's life, and had a saying: "He who 
keeps silent does not quarrel, he who keeps 
silent, does not sin". 

Alexander Duchnovich, contradicted this 
adage by saying: "The dog that barks does not 
bite, but the one which keeps silent". Alexander 
Duchnovich was altogether of another type; but 
still fate brought them together. Duchnovich 
after his ordination was appointed to the 
Chancery .He was ordained a single man, to help 
his widowed mother. 

Bishop Gregory Tarkovics did not do much 
administrative work, leaving most of its work to 
his secretary and he spent time fasting and 
praying. The Eparchy received a stipend from 
the Government in the amount of 6000 Florints 
and property in Misle, Abauj County, and the 
Chapter a property in Brestov, Saros County. 
But the Primate of Hungary appropriated these 
properties for the upkeep of his seminary, an 
action approved by Hungarian Government July 
7, 1820. Instead of these properties, the Eperjes 
Eparchy received Lichnic and Veres Kolostor in 
Szepes County and Varano and Kolbas, Zemplen 
County. This property was divided into three 
parts, for the Bishop, the Chapter and the 
Cathedral. 

Bishop Gregory Tarkovics befriended Canon 
Kovacs Janos, and the library of the Eperjes 
Eparchy must be credited to this friendship. 
Canon Kovacs Janos donated his Library May 1, 
1819, and September 19th gave a monastery gift 
of 1000 Florints to buy new books. The following 
year he again donated 500 Florints. In 1820 he 
made a promise to donate 200 Florints a year to 
the seminary Library of Eperjes as long as he 
lived. Canon Kovacs Janos, a professor in Eger, 

144 



died in Vienna April 12, 1834. A monument was 
placed on his grave by Bishop Gregory 
Tarkovics, who also celebrated a Requiem 
Divine Liturgy the day of his death and every 
year thereafter on June 24, a Divine Liturgy was 
celebrated for his soul. 

Bishop Gregory Tarkovics died January 16, 
1841, at a ripe age of 83. 

Bishop Gaganec Jozsef 1834-1872. The suc- 
cessor of Bishop Gregory Tarkovics was 
Gaganec Jozsef. His family name was Gagan, he 
most probably was born in Galicia on April 10, 
1793 and baptized in the church of Vysna 
Tvarosc. His father was an army officer of lower 
rank, his mother's maiden name was Lubkovics 
Maria. He received his education in Bartfa, 
Ujhely, Lb'cse, Nagy Varad and Nagy Szombat 
(Trnava). He was elected Bishop July 13, 1842. 

Gaganec Jozsef was chosen bishop from 
among the Eparchial clergy. As a priest he 
served in several parishes. When his wife Anna 
Kovalicky died, he became a member of the 
Eperjes Chapter. Gagenec Jozsef was 
nominated by the Government to the 
Episcopacy, for which he was very thankful, not 
so much for his nomination as a Bishop, but 
rather for the sake of his people, who were very 
poor and could not expect help in their misery 
except from the Government. 

Because of his appeal Bishop Gaganec Jozsef 
received a stipend November 1, 1845 from the 
Religious Fund in amount of 28, 170 Guldens and 
27 and one-half Grajcaries. He also received a 
subsidy for the Episcopacy in the amount of 3000 
Guldens and for the Chapter 2,500 Guldens. In 
1857 the Emperor Ferenc Jozsef I. again raised 
the subsidies, on the Bishop's appeal. 

In 1848 the Episcopal residence was built with 
the patronage of King Ferdinand V. Up to 
present the bishops have lived in the monastery 
building. 

During the revolution of 1848 the bishop suf- 
fered immensely. He was opposed to Kossuth 

145 



Lajos and was forced to flee and hide in different 
villages. When the rays of peace appeared 
Bishop Gaga nee Jozsef returned to his See and 
called a meeting September 27, 1849. At this 
meeting it was decided to send representatives 
to the Emperor in Vienna, with a petition, to 
secure the right of freedom of the Uhro-Rusins, 
referring to the Constitution of March 4, 1849. On 
October 1, ten men wfere present, in. Vienna for 
the audience on October 19 in Schoobrun palace. 

After receiving their petition, the Emperor 
approved it with a remark : "It was a pleasure to 
me to hear the complaint of the Uhro-Rusins. 
The Uhro-Rusins were always faithful to the 
Audstrian House, therefore you can rest assured, 
that your wishes will be fulfilled." 

Many Uhro-Rusins received offices as 
territorial officials, judges etc. In Eperjes and 
Ungvar gymnasium a special Chair was in- 
troduced concerning the Uhro-Rusin language. 
In Ungvar besides religion and the Rusin 
language the teaching was in the Rusin 
language. A newspaper was printed in Vienna 
namely the "Vistnik" and in Pest "Cerkovnaga 
Gazetta". 

Bishop Gaganec Jozsef supported Rusinism, 
he also became the president of the Literary 
Jozsef Institution in Eperjes. 

Bishop Gaganec Jozsef reigned in the Eperjes 
Eparchy for 34 years, and died December 22, 
1875. 

Bishop Toth Miklos Dr. 1876-1882. 

Bishop Toth Miklos was born in Munkacs 
August 10, 1883, (191) and was educated in 
Szatmar and the University of Pest. He was 
ordained December 19, 1857, after which Bishop 
Popovics sent him for further studies to Vienna. 
Here he received his Doctorate in Theology and 
the following year he began to teach in the 

191. MESZAROS KAROLY, Op. cit. p. 169 

BALUGYANSZKY ANDRAS, Op. cit. 4*2 

146 



Ungvar seminary. He became a Canon and 
Rector of the seminary, and finally elected 
Bishop to the Eperjes See January 16, 1876. 

Bishop Toth Miklos was not of the same type 
as Bishop Tarkovics neither as Bishop Gaganec. 
He was of the school of Bishop Pankovics of 
Ungvar, who wished to subdue all that was 
Rusin. 

But when Bishop Toth was sent to Eperjes as a 
Bishop, he did not forget that he became Bishop 
of the Rusins and not the Hungarians. He proved 
this with his bahavior toward the Hungarian 
Liturgy. 

Here we must make a remark about the 
feeling of Bishop Toth Miklos towards the 
Hungarian language. Baron Eotvos, Minister of 
Culture and Education, informed Bishop 
Popovics of the Munkacs Eparchy on November 
19. 1848. protocol number 2122, that the 
Ministerium is ready to print Hungarian 
Liturgical books. He also reported that the 
Hungarian Parliament on February 19, 1881 was 
stressing the matter of an Episcopal See in 
Hajdu-Dorog, with the printing of Hungarian 
Liturgical books. The Minister of Culture and 
Education was to take the necessary steps in this 
matter. 

King Ferenc Jozsef I. in an audience March 4, 
1881 gave his consent to this project. The 
Minister of Culture and Education Trefert 
August, on March 10th, turned to the Bishops 
(Greek Rite), protocol No. 474 and asked their 
opinion. 

Bishop Toth Miklos replied April 26th, No. 
1356, in which he explained that: This question is 
a Church matter, therefore the decision must 
come from Rome, the competent party in this 
matter. 

Secondly, the Bishop stated his opinion con- 
cerning the Old Slovanic language even though it 
differs in form from the living Slovanic 
languages, i.e., dialects, still, it is very close to 
the Uhro-Rusin language, so, that the people 

147 



understand it without any hardship. Therefore, it 
cannot be said that the Old Siovanic language 
belongs to the family of dead languages, 
language understood by the people proposed by 
the Hungarians, the initiators of the Hungarian 
Liturgy. 

Bishop Toth Mikios strongly demanded that 
children in schools be taught in their native 
tongue. The Bishop made Canonical Visitations 
in the Eparchy for the good of the parish and its 
people. Bishop Toth Mikios was educated, taught 
by Bishop Pankovics Istvan, still he stood by the 
Uhro-Rusin people to the end, because he was 
appointed as a Bishop for them, i.e. Uhro-Rusins 
and not the Hungarians. This is a testimony to 
his great character, love of the people and of the 
Greek Rite. A people which had received their 
religious name not from the Government, but 
from a Synod of the Greek Rite Catholic Bishops 
in 1773. This Synod stated that the faithful are to 
be called GREEK RITE CATHOLICS, 
GRECESKAHO OBRJADA KATQLIKI, GOROG 
SZERTARTASU KATHOLIKUS, and no other 
name and not by a name given by individuals, 
who do not know their own name, omit all the 
given names. 

Bishop Vatyi Janos 1883-1911 - The memory of 
Bishop Toth Mikios ties us to the foundation of 
the Eperjes seminary, which opened its doors on 
September 12, 1880. Up to this date seminarians 
were educated in the Ungvar Greek Rite 
Catholic Seminary. 

Bishop Valyi Janos was born in O-Vinczello, 
Szabolcs County, September 22, 1837. His father 
was a Greek Rite Catholic priest, his mother's 
maiden name was Medvecky Antonia. He 
received his education in Debreczen, Ungvar 
and Nagy Varad. Theology in Ungvar, post 
graduate studies in Vienna in the Augustinium 
University. 

Valyi Jozsef was of a noble family, which had 
received its nobility from King Laszlo IV, in 1274 
with a property in Felso Valy, Gomor County. 

148 



(192). His family became Calvinists during the 
Reformation. His great grandfather, Valyi 
Marton, was a Calvinist preacher in Tarnocz, 
Ung County. His youngest son Jozsef returned to 
the Catholic Church of the Greek Rite and his son 
Janos, the lather of the Bishop, was baptized in 
Ihe Greek Rite Catholic Church in Pete, Szatmar 
County, July 21, 1804, and became a priest in the 
Munkacs Eparchy. 

Valyi Janos was an assistant priest in 
Satoralja Ujhely, Zemplen County and later 
became a professor in the Ungvar Seminary. 
Elected Bishop on October 11, 1882 and con- 
secrated bishop July 15, 1883, by Bishop Pasz- 
telyi Janos of Ungvar. From many candidates 
Valyi Janos was selected for the See of Eperjes. 
His nobility had much to do with his election. He 
himself admitted to being totally dedicated to the 
Hungarian cause as was Bishop Pankovics 
Istvan in Ungvar. The chauvinistic pride of the 
Hungarians was soon disappointed. Bishop Valyi 
instead of becoming a chauvinistic Hungarian, 
proclaimed himself to be a "Pan Slovanic." 
Bishop Valyi was a very conscientious person 
and stood by his convictions. As a Bishop, he 
said: "My work is to be an apostle not a 
politician." 

Yes, Bishop Valyi was a real Greek Rite 
Catholic, not an instrument placed in the office. 
He looked at the Union soberly, valued it, as did 
our forefathers who made the Union. He did not 
travel to Budapest, to Vienna or to Rome to 
bargain with the treasures of the Uhro-Rusins. 
He considered the Union as a statement of the 
rights of the Uhro-Rusins, a guarantee of 
freedom and Rusin nationality which, un- 
fortunately did not happen. Bishop Valyi said: 
"The Bishop of the Uhro-Rusins must not hate 
the conditions of the Union; on the contrary, it is 
his obligation to see to it that they are accurately 

192. WENCZELL G. Arpadhazi Uj Okm any tar. 
Vol. X. pp. 18-52. 

149 



fulfilled. These conditions concerning the 
Cyrillic alphabet, the mother's tongue, 
nationality, Calendar, Rite, etc., were all ac- 
cepted officially." Therefore in the Bishop's 
opinion if any person, clergy or politician in- 
duces a change, he would be destroyed. 

In an attempt to introduce celibacy among the 
Uhro-Rusins, first of all in America, an order 
given by the Congregation for the Propagation of 
Faith October 1, 1890, to the Greek Rite Bishops 
that they are obligated to carry out the 
following: 

1. Married priests are obligated to return 
from America to the Old Country as soon as 
possible. 

2. In the future only single clergymen are to 
be sent to America. They must present them- 
selves to the Diocesan Bishop, where they are to 
work and from whom they are to ask jurisdic- 
tion, becoming their subject. 

Bishop Valyi considered this order illegal, and 
a violation of the Union made with Rome. In this 
order he saw the repetition of the Eger system 
over the Uhro-Rusins in the XVIIIth century. 
The Union gave the right to protect ourselves in 
all matters, consequently in America also 
because the Church is international. To break 
one condition of the Union means to destroy the 
whole contract of Union. 

Furthermore the emigrant Uhro-Rusins are 
going to America, not to one or another Latin 
Rite Diocese, but are going to a territory where 
there is freedom of religion. Who has the right to 
change this freedom? 

Bishop Valyi was of the opinion that the Uhro- 
Rusins not having their own Superior, are not to 
be subjected to the American Latin Rite Bishops, 
but to the nearest Catholic Bishop of the Greek 
Rite. 

Bishop Valyi had sent his extensive 
clarification to the Congregation and worked 
hard for the benefit of the American Rusins to 
have their own Greek Rite Eparchy in America. 

150 



He did not recall the married clergy, instead he 
continued to send to America married 
clergymen, also "Chrism," the Holy Oil for 
Confirmation. 

Bishop Valyi extended seminary buildings, 
founded the teachers - cantors school, extended 
the Alumni boarding school, founded the 
•'hraManska" school and built a boarding school 

Bishop Valyi denied himself things so that 
others might have them. He gave money away 
freely to churches, schools, to the poor, orphans 
and the widows, who should never be forgotten. 

He went to his eternal reward, November 11, 
1911. 

Bishop Novak Istvan, Dr., 1914-1918. 

Bishop Novak Istvan was born in Ublya, 
Zemplen County, December 4, 1879. His father 
was a Greek Rite Catholic priest, his mother's 
maiden name was Balogh Maria. He pursued his 
studies in Ungvar and Esztergom, did post- 
graduate work in Vienna, where he received the 
Doctorate in Theology. 

The Eperjes Eparchy waited for two years for 
a successor to Bishop Valyi. Finally the 
Government appointed Novak Istvan October 13, 
1913. He was an instructor of Grof Palfy's 
(Moric) children. At the age of 34, a young man, 
he was consecrated November 9, 1914 a bishop. 
He at once occupied his See, without notifying 
the clergy or people. 

Bishop Novak did not act as the Bishop of 
Eperjes, apostolic work was not his concern, but 
gave himself over to the Government as an in- 
strument to do their work. He saw in his calling a 
work to denationalize tless Uhro-Rusins. He 
discarded the "Cyrrilic" arpfiabet and replaced 
the Old-Slavonic liturgical books with Hungarian 
liturgical books, and changed the Julian 
Calendar to the Gregorian. 

For these activities, the Bishop was very 
much detested by the people. The doors of prison 
opened to those who opposed his order. 

151 



When the political change came in the 
country, Bishop Novak simply left the Eparchy 
and went to Budapest, where he died September 
16, 1932. 

Bishop Nyaradi Dionisius, Apostolic Ad- 
ministrator of the PreSov Eparchy. He was born 
in Russkij Keresztur, Bacs County, October 10, 
1874. ordained in 1899. Studied in Zagreb and 
Rome. Consecrated a Bishop for the Koros 
(Kriievac) Eparchy January 1, 1915 in Rome. 
Bishop Nyaradi was an Apostolic Administrator 
of the vacant PreSov Eparchy from 1922 to 1927. 
He saved the PreSov Eparchy from a religious 
struggle, not permitting the schism to spread in 
the Eparchy. He died in Mrzlim Pole, 
Jugoslavia, April 14, 1940. 

Bishop Gojdics P. Paul OSBM. 1927-1960. He 
was born in Russki Peklany, where his father 
was a priest. Studied in Eperjes (PreSov) and 
Budapest, ordained August 27, 1911 in Eperjes. 
Joined the Order of St. Basil the Great July 22, 
1922 in Munkacevo. He became a very active 
missionary in Podkarpatska Rus. In 1926, 
became an Apostolic Administrator of the 
PreSov Eparchy, and was consecrated a Bishop 
March 25, 1927 in Rome. 

He saved the Rusin Eparchial schools from 
full Slovakinization, for a time being. In 1936 
Bishop Gojdics inaugurated a liturgical 
movement, hoping to impress the beauty of the 
Greek Rite Divine Services, heritage, make the 
people appreciate the richness. He reminded the 
faithful that our beautiful Greek Rite remains a 
hidden treasure to these who do not understand 
the great benefits they receive by participation 
in the services. 

These were the days of "trial", no one thought 
of shorter services, shorter time to pray, 
because they felt the weight and benefits of 

prayers. 

Bishop Gojdics was a very pious man, he 
loved to pray and meditate. Yes, his prayers and 
meditations were preparing him to withstand the 

152 



future attractions, which befell him in fllava- 
Leopold prison, which he endured. He became a 
martyr for his belief in the Greek Rite Catholic 
religion, dying July 19, i960. 

During the occupation of the Eperjes 
(Presov) Eparchy territory by the Soviet Army 
in 1945, the Orthodox movement in the Eparchy 
was spreading; it was directed by the Patriarch 
of Moscow. He sent Archbishop Eleutherius 
Vorontsov to lead the attack against the Greek 
Rite Catholic Church in Czechoslovakia. 
Euletherius was- supported by the People's 
Democratic Party (Communists) and the 
Central Government. 

He insisted that the Or- 
thodox Church was the "People's Church" and 
the Greek Catholic Church was subservient to 
the "Western Powers" 

To counterattack this movement, Bishop 
Gojdics petitioned Rome to appoint for him an 
Auxiliary Bishop. Bishop Basil Hopko was ap- 
pointed, and consecrated May 11, 1947. 

In the summer of 1947, the Moscow Embassy 
of Prague realized that the propaganda against 
Bishop Gojdics did not succeed, and pressured 
the Czechoslovak Government to imprison the 
Bishop, as being an enemy of the people. The 
National Council refused this order, fearing the 
reaction of the people. 

After the Communist's forceful occupation of 
Czechoslovakia in 1948, the Greek Catholic 
-Eparchy of Presov was doomed. The new 
Government refused to recognize the Greek 
Catholic Church, branding it as being the enemy 
of the people. 

In 1949 the Orthodox Archbishop Eleutherius 
confiscated the monasteries and the religious 
were sent to Concentration Camps. All Greek 
Catholic publications were suppressed. 

Bishop Gojdics in his Pastoral Letter of 1949 
wrote the following: "Our sorrows and struggles 
in this valley of tears shall neither embitter nor 
break us, nor separate us from the true Church 

153 



of Christ, On the contrary suffering will only 
strengthen our Union with Christ. We believe and 
are convinced that through many tribulations we 
have to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, and 
that after Good Friday, a glorious resurrection 
will dawn for us." 

The communists were intimidating Bishop 
Gojdics at an all night hearing; threatening him 
with arrest, forbidding him to have contact with 
his clergy. Bishop Gojdics did not yield - this 
inspired the clergy and people who remained 
steadfast to their faith. 

The Central Committee was for the return of 
Orthodoxy (C.C.R.O.) and began the final attack 
on the Greek Catholic Church. The State 
Representatives promised assistance of the 
police and army to secure a success of the of- 
fensive. 

The Secret Police arrested 32 Greek Catholic 
clergy, the reason being: political activities. 
They were given a choice, accept Orthodoxy or 
prison. 

It was evident that not the people, but the 
Government decided to force the Greek 
Catholics to accept Orthodoxy. 

On April 28, 1950 State buses were sent out to 
distant villages, where the military men loaded 
them with people. From the neighboring 
villages, the faithful and priests were forced to 
march in procession to Presov for a religious 
meeting. 

The Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate 
reported that at this meeting 4000 lay people and 
clergy were present, with 820 lay delegates. 

Benieki a layman delivered the welcome 
address In which he dramatically concluded: 
"today we witness the liquidation of the last 
Greek Catholic Eparchy of Presov." 

The following resolutions were unanimously 
passed (according the Communist system) : 

1. Nullify the decisions ratified by the Ungvar 
Union of 1646-1649. 



154 



2, Sever all ties with Rome and return to the 
Holy Orthodox Church. 

3. Petition the Patriarch of Moscow to receive 
them under his ecclesiastical jurisdiction. 

Bishop Gojdics was informed about the 
abolition of the Union of Ungvar by a delegation 
which demanded the keys of his cathedral. 
Bishop Gojdics refused to acknowledge the 
Synod and would not surrender the keys. 

The dissident mob stormed the cathedral 
doors and entered, Archbishop Eleutherius of 
Prague and Bishop Alexius took possession of the 
cathedral. The Government quickly approved 
the acts of the Synod of PreSov and considered 
the Greek Catholic Church as dissolved, and all 
possessions of the Greek Catholic Church to be 
transferred to the Orthodox Church. 

As the Dissidents sang hymns in the 
cathedral, the military men arrested Bishop 
Paul Gojdics and led him to prison. 

A trial began in Bratislava, Bishop Paul 
Gojdics was tried and convicted for his loyalty 
and fidelity to the Catholic Church. 

The Secret Police tried to break Bishop 
Gojdics' resistance by their own method, torture 
and prolonged interrogations. 

Tiie Warden of the prison, who later escaped 
to Austria recalls the following: "I saw and 
heard the investigating officer roughing up and 
terribly cursing Bishop Gojdics. The good Bishop 
did not even try to protect himself, but looked 
piously at the brutal officer, who struck him on 
the head and face. 

"On another occasion the officer ordered iron 
shoes be placed on the Bishop's feet, which were 
charged with high voltage of electricity. Again 
the Bishop did not wince, but prayed. When the 
involved officer touched the iron shoe, if the 
power was on, he was violently thrown against 
the wall. Bishop Gojdics remained standing, 
moving his lips in prayer. 

Bishop Gojdics' integrity cannot be 
questioned. His rare spiritual gifts and his 

155 



loyalty to the Catholic Church leave no doubt. 

Bishop Paul Gojdics suffered immensely but 
iri his tribulations he knew how to pray, how to 
turn to God, On July 19, 1960 Bishop Paul Gojdic 
gloriously ended his earthly saintly life and 
reached his eternal glory. Now he pleads for our 
persecuted Greek Catholic Church before God's 
throne. 

BISHOP BASIL HOPKO was born in Hrabske 
Saris county, educated in the Presov Gym- 
nasium and Theological Seminary. Ordained 
February 3, 1929. After ordination was sent to 
Prague where he organized the Greek Rite 
Catholic parish. Made his post-graduate studies 
at the University of Bratislava, where in 1387 
received the Doctorate of Theology. In 1941 
taught in the seminary and worked in the 
Chancery Office. 

On May 11, 1947 was ordained as Bishop. As a 
Bishop he defended the flock of the Presov 
Eparchy in spiritual matters, with Bishop Paul 
Gojdics OSBM. Was arrested in 1950 by the 
Communists, who for a time tried to brainwash 
him. In 1952 he was sentenced to a 15 year prison 
term. After serving 13 and one-half years was 
placed under house arrest in Oseka, Czechia. In 
1968 during the Dubcek regime returned to 
Presov, where he was reinstated as a citizen by 
the Government, but the Government refused to 
appoint him as a resident bishop. Therefore, 
since April 2, 1969 the Presov Eparchy is ad- 
ministered by John Hirka Apostolic Ad- 
ministrator. (193) 

THE EPARCHY OP HAJDUDOROG 

The history of the Hajdudorog Eparchy is 
connected with the struggle which lasted over a 
half century, i.e., the recognition of the Magyar- 
Hungarian Liturgical language. 

193. Slivka John. "Eparchy of Presov" 
Manuscript. 

156 



Tacitly the Church authorities tolerated the 
Magyar-Hungarian language in districts where 
Magyar-Hungarians were living, depending 
upon the circumstances; the leaders of this 
movement reasoned that in the Greek Rite 
Church it is permissible to use the 'vernacular. 
With this tacit exception Rome assured the 
Union. The Roumanians of the Greek Rite have 
the Roumanian language as a liturgical 
language, the Rusins have the Old-Slavonic 
liturgical language, which is the root language of 
the Rusin language. Bishop Sziagyi Papp Jozsef 
of the Greek Rite of Nagy Varad states in his 
book: "The Canon Law", that it was decided at a 
meeting held in Hajdudorag parish May 2, 1863, 
that the Hungarian language also should be 
elevated to the rank of other liturgical 
languages. Therefore, the committee in charge 
petitioned all concerned authorities. 

The consequence of this deed was that Bishop 
Szilagyi Papp Jozsef forbade the use of the 
Hungarian language in the city of Makko parish, 
which for the longest time used the Hungarian 
language in the Divine Liturgy. 

This order brought its reaction in 
Hajdudorog April 16, 1868. The parishioners 
formed a committee, appointing Farkas Lajos as 
its Chairman. Fifty -eight members were present 
representing the parish. At this meeting it was 
decided to start movements to establish a 
Hungarian language Episcopal See, for the 
Greek Rite Catholic faithful in Hungary. 
Petitions were sent to His Majesty the King, the 
Prince Primate of Hungary, also to the 
Parliament and the legal authorities. 

September 17, 1873 their efforts brought to 
them an appointment of a Vicar for the 
Hungarian Greek Rite Catholics in Hajdudorog, 
namely Father Danilovics Janos. Hajdudorog at 
that time belonged to the Munkacs Eparchy, 

In 1896 during the Millenium festival the 
committee deemed it a proper time to get results 
for their petition. Farkas Lajos led a committee 

157 



with their petition to the Bishop of Munkacs 
Eparchy, to the Prince Primate of Hungary and 
to both Houses of Parliament. 

This deed again brought disappointment, 
because on September 2 the Holy See notified the 
Hungarian Government through its diplomatic 
channel : that by all means it will NOT permit the 
use of the Hungarian language in the divine 
Liturgy and Services. 

The Premier of the Government Baron BanffY 
Dezso proclaimed at the Parliament: "the 
Hungarian Greek Rite Catholic Episcopacy must 
set aside the Hungarian language question." 
This intention also did not bring results. In the 
meantime in the Capital City of Budapest, the 
Greek Rite Catholics began to organize them- 
selves to establish a Greek Rite Catholic parish. 
Szabo Jeno, a member of the Diet, became the 
president of this organizing group, to establish a 
parish, and worked to obtain permission for the 
Hungarian language in the Divine Services, 
which up to date was only tolerated. One hundred 
eleven parishes joined this committee and also 
took part in the Pilgrimage to Rome in 1900, a 
jubilee year, to petition the Holy Father in this 
matter. This also brought a reverse result, 
because in 1905 the Congregation of Faith took 
the protest of the Roumanian Greek Rite 
Catholics into consideration and said the 
Roumanians cannot be members of the Rusin- 
Hungarian parishes. 

To solve the problem, it led to a compromise, 
accept the Old Greek language to be used instead 
of the Hungarian and Old Slovanic language in 
such parishes. In 1913 a Decree was issued from 
Rome, that the Hungarians must learn the Greek 
language in three years and eonduct the Divine 
Services in Greek. In 1914 the First World War 
began, which lasted until 1919; in the meantime 
the three years lapsed. Being that Italy was 
opposing Hungary in the war, not to make the 
language issue a political question, Rome 
decided to have only the Consecration words to 

158 



be said in Greek. This order was accepted by the 
Hungarians, the proof of this is that in their 
Hungarian Liturgikons the Consecration words 
were inserted in Greek. 

June S, 1912 the decree "Christi Fideles 
Graeci'* announced the establishment of the 
Greek Rite Catholic Hungarian Eparchy which 
commenced in 1913. 

The first Bishop of the Greek Rite Catholic 
Eparchy of Hajdudorog was appointed April 12, 
1913, namely Miklossy Istvan, pastor of the 
Satoralja Ujhely, Zemplen County parish. His 
Eparchial Seat, residence, was placed in the city 
of Debreczen, in which city most of the dwellers 
were members of John Calvin Reformed Church. 
Bishop Miklossy Istvan petitioned Rome to have 
his residence changed. 

Bishop Miklossy Istvan was born in Rakocz, 
Zemplen County, August 22, 1859. Educated in 
Ungvar, theology in Budapest, ordained April 17, 
1884. Consecrated Bishop October 5, 1913. The 
temporary residence was in Debreczen, where 
some enemies of the bishop sent a bomb through 
the mail. The bomb exploded, took three lives, 
but the Bishop was not harmed, not being 
present when die package was opened. 

In September of 1914 the city Fathers of 
Nyiregyhaza invited Bishop Miklossy Istvan to 
transfer his residence to Nyiregyhaza. The 
Bishop did consent to this petition with the ap- 
proval of the Holy See, transferred the residence 
of the Hajdudorog Eparchy to Nyiregyhaza. The 
Patron Saint of the HajduDorog Eparchy is St. 
Stephen the protomartyr. It had 82 parishes and 
142,000 souls with 106 priests in charge and also 
four montks. 

Bishop Miklossy Istvan died October 30. 1937. 
The Second Bishop of Hajdudorog Eparchy 

was Bishop Dudas Miklos, OSBM. 1939-1972. He 
was born October 27, 1902 in Maria Pdcs, 
Hungary. Studied in Ungvar and Nagy Kallo. 
Entered the Order of St. Basil the Great in 1921. 
He studied theology in Rome. Ordained in 1927, 

159 



in 1939, March 25, was consecrated a Bishop in 
Maria Pocs, 

Bishop Dudas Miklos served as Apostolic 
Administrator of the Munkacs Eparchy in the 
years of 1943-1944 after the death of Bishop Sz- 
tojka Sandor. He also became Apostolic Ad- 
ministrator of the Vicariate of Miskolcz, 
Hungary, in 1946, following the death of Ar- 
chbishop Papp Antal. 

Despite the fact that his spiritual leadership 
over a quarter million Hungarian Greek Rite 
Catholics was during the extremely difficult 
times of war and the Soviet occupation, his ac- 
tivities were successful and beneficial for the 
Greek Rite Catholic Hungarians. 

Bishop Dudas Miklos OSBM died July 21, 1972, 
and was buried in the Basilica of Mariapocs, 
Szabolcs County, Hungary. 

WILSON'S FOURTEEN POINTS ENUN- 
CIATED - JANUARY 8, 1918 (197) 

Midway between the American declaration of 
war on Germany and the armistice, President 
Woodrow Wilson proclaimed the famous 
FOURTEEN POINTS as the American program 
of peace in an address to Congress as follows: 

"Gentlemen of the Congress: 

We entered this war because violations of 
right had occurred which touched us to the quick 
and made the life of our own people impossible 
unless they wre corrected and the world secured 
once for all against their recurrence. What we 
demand in this war, therefore, is nothing 
peculiar to ourselves. It is that the world be 
made fit and safe to live in ; and particularly that 
it be made safe for every peace-loving nation 
which, like our own, wishes to live its own life, 
determine its own institution, be assured of 
justice and fair dealing by the other peoples of 

197. From United States 65th Congress, 2nd 
Session, House Documents, Vo. 113, No. 765. 

160 



the world as against force and selfish 
aggression. AH the peoples of the world are in 
effect partners in this interest, and for our own 
part we see very clearly that unless justice be 
done to theirs it will not be done to us. The 
program of the world's peace, therefore, is our 
program; and that program, the only possible 
program, as we see it, is this: 

1. Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at 
after which there shall be no private in- 
ternational understandings of any kind but 
diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in 
the public view. 

2. Absolute freedom of navigation upon the 
seas, outside territorial waters, alike in peace 
and in war, except as the seas may be closed in 
whole or part by international action for the 
enforcement of international covenants. 

3. The removal, so far as possible, of all 
economic barriers and the establishment of an 
equality of trade conditions among all the 
nations consenting to the peace and associating 
themselves for its maintenance. 

4. Adequate guarantees given and taken that 
national armaments will be reduced to the 
lowest point consistent with domestic safety. 

5. A free, open-minded, and absolutely im- 
partial adjustment of all colonial claims, based 
upon a strict observance of the principle that in 
determining all such questions of sovereignty 
the interests of the populations concerned must 
have equal weight with the equitable claims of 
the government whose title is to be determined. 

6. The evacuation of all Russian territory and 
such a settlement of all questions affecting 
Russia as will secure the best and freest 
cooperation of the other nations of the world in 
obtaining for her an unhampered and unem- 
barrassed opportunity for the independent 
determination of her own political development 
and national policy and assure her of a sincere 
welcome into the .society of free nations under 
institutions of her own choosing. 

161 



7. Belgium, the whole world will agree, must 
be evacuated and restored, without any attempt 
to limit the sovereignty which she enjoys in 
common with all other free nations. 

8. All French territory should be freed and 
the invaded portion restored, and the wrong done 
to Prance by Prussia in 1871 in the matter of 
Alsace -Lorraine, which has unsettled the peace 
of the world for nearly fifty years, should be 
righted. 

9. A readjustment of the frontiers of Italy 
should be effected along clearly recognizable 
lines of nationality. 

10. The peoples of Austria-Hungary, whose 
place among the nations we wish to see 
safeguarded and assured, should be accorded 
the freest opportunity of autonomous develop- 
ment. 

11. Roumania, Serbia, and Montenegro 
should be evacuated, occupied territories 
restored; Serbia accorded free and secure ac- 
cess to the sea. 

12. The Turkish portion of the present Ot- 
toman Empire should be assured a secure 
sovereignty, but the other nationalities which 
are now under Turkish rule should be assured an 
undoubted security of life and an absolute un- 
molested opportunity of autonomous develop- 
ment, and the Dardanelles should be per- 
manently opened as a free passage to the ships 
and commerce of all nations under international 
guarantees. 

13. An Independent Polish state should be 
erected which should include the territories 
inhabited by indisputably Polish population, 
which should be assured a free and secure access 
to the sea, and whose political and economic 
independence and territorial integrity should be 
guaranteed by international covenant 

14. A general association of nations must be 
formed under specific covenants for the purpose 
of affording mutual guarantees of political in- 
dependence and territorial integrity to great and 

162 



small states alike. 

For such arrangements and covenants we are 
willing to fight and to continue to fight until they 
are achieved; but only because we wish the right 
to prevail and desire a just and stable peace such 
as can be secured only by removing the chief 
provocations to war, which this program does 
remove. 

We have no jealousy of German greatness, 
and there is nothing in this program that impairs 
it 

We have spoken now, surely, in terms too 
concrete to admit any further doubt or question. 
An evident principle runs through the whole 
program I have outlined. It is the principle of 
justice to all peoples and nationalities, and their 
right to live on equal terms of liberty and safety 
with one another, whether they be strong or 
weak. Unless this principle be made its foun- 
dation no part of the structure of international 
justice can stand. 

The people of the United States could act upon 
no other principle; and to the vindication of flits 
principle they are ready to devote their lives, 
their honor, and everything that they possess. 

The moral climax of this the culminating and 
final war for human liberty has come, and they 
are ready to put their own strength, their own 
highest purpose, their own integrity and devotion 
to the test." 

HOW THE TERRITORY OF RUSINS OF 

FORMER HUNGARY WAS DISMEMBERED 

1919-1921 

The First World War of 1914-1919 came to an 
end, and different countries were dismembered 
by the Mighty Powers meeting in the suburbs of 
Paris. 

When Thomas G. Masaryk visited the United 
States of America in the summer of 1918, it is 
very probable that he was worried about a group 
of peopel, the Uhro-Rusins, who if associated 

163 



with his scheme would lend success to his goals. 
<l) 

The Czechs and Slovaks already had a long 
standing relation between themselves and they 
proclaimed brotherhood, but no connection ever 
existed among them and the Uhro-Rusins. These 
had to be won over to enlarge the Czechoslovak 
boundaries, and it is probably due to this fact 
that they were willing to guarantee such an 
exceptional situation in the Czechoslovak State, 
a situation later secured by the Peace Treaty. 

Being that the Uhro-Rusins in the United 
States of America were not oppressed, the op- 
pressed Uhro-Rusins of Hungary were seeking 
help from the Uhro-Rusins in the United States of 
America. The Uhro-Rusins in America selected 
Greogry I. Zsatkovich, a son of an Uhro-Rusin 
emmigrant from Hungary, taken to the United 
States of America as a child. He became a 
United States of America citizen, in profession a 
lawyer and was the right man to be the leader of 
the Uhro-Rusins. 

He initiated the RUSIN AMERICAN 
NATIONAL COUNCIL June 26, 1918 at 
McKeesport, Pa. The Council was planning 
resolutions in the name of the Uhro-Rusins in 
Hungary. In their resolutions they doubted that 
the Uhro-Rusins and the Galician Rusins would 
make a Union, seeing it an economic absurdity. 
Still this Rusin territory of Hungary was 
valuable to both of those countries. (2) 

Thomas G. Masaryk prepared the way for this 
solution with his school friend Woodrow Wilson, 
who acknowledged the Uhro-Rusins of Hungary 

1. UHRO-RUSINS are the inhabitants of the 
north eastern southern Carpathian moun- 
tains. (Former Hungary). 

2. PUBLICATION OF THE HUNGARIAN 
FRONTIER READJUSTMENT LEAGUE 
IV. MINORITY GRIEVANCES IN 
RUSSINSKO. Budapest, 1927, 5. 

164 



as members of the Central European Union. A 
few days later the representatives of both were 
acknowledged by the Great Powers, 
Czechoslovakia and the Rusin territory and 
signed the DECLARATION by Thomas G. 
Masaryk and Gregory I. Zsatkovich, which was 
drafted in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 
Freedom Hall. On the basis of this resolution: 
sanctioned November 12 by the National Council, 
declaring the Rusins of Hungary as a State with 
full autonomous rights, willing to unite itself wifh 
the Czechoslovak State, with the provision, that 
the Rusin counties: Sepes, Saros, Zemplen, 
Abauj, GomSr, Ung, Bereg, Ugocsa and 
Maramaros belong to their state. (3) 

The Uhro-Rusins of Hungary knew nothing 
about these agreements until February 13, 1919, 
when a Czech Captain Pisecky spoke about the 

resolution to Canon Simeon Szabo, President of 
the Rusin Council of Ungvar. (4) Particulars of 
the above-mentioned resolutions became known 
only March 16, 1921 when Gregory I. Zsatkovich, 
who was appointed Governor of Rusins, became 
convinced that the Czechs had no inclination to 
fulfill their promises. He resigned, from his 
position as Governor, and to justify himself 
published a Memorandum at Ungvar reporting 
all matters in detail. 

Here too it is remembered that after Captain 
Pisecky's announcement February 13, 1919, it 
was also announced that the desire of the Rusin 
National Council of Hungary is that the 
autonomous Uhro-Rusins wish to be joined to 
Hungary. 

3. HANCHIN MICHAEL. ARV. August 8, 
1918.... and Sept. 5, 1918 Thomas G. Masaryk 
promised that the boundaries of Podkar- 
patska Rus will be so arranged that the 
Rusins will be satisfied. 

4. HANAK K. WALTER. "The Subcarpathian 
Question 1918-1945. p. 11. 

165 



While in the United States of America, 
Thomas G. Masaryk and Gregory I. Zsatkovich 
were deciding the fate of the Uhro-Rusins, the 
same question was raised in the Rusin territory. 
After the Karolyi Hungarian Government 
proclaimed the autonomous rights of the 
nationalities, advising them to form a National 
Council of their own, several councils were 
formed, but in the middle of November, all ac- 
cepted the National Council of Ungvar as their 
representative. 

On November 24th, both parties, the Rusins 
and Hungarians, gave a joint declaration, ac- 
cepting the right of autonomy. In the meantime 
Hungary guaranteed the Rusin people the free 
exercise of religion, use of the Gregorian or 
Julian calendar and the Rusin language in. 
schools, employing Rusin teachers. Later on 
announced a scheme of autonomy of Foreign 
Affairs, war, finance, nationality, civil and 
criminal law, railways and public welfare of 
common affairs. (S) 

On the basis of these decisions of December 
24, 1918 the autonomy was proclaimed January 1, 
1919 and a Government Commissioner was 
appointed Minister of RUSZKA KRAJINA 
(Rusin State) preparing the way for the Rusin 
Diet (Sojm) to be held March 8-10. 

On February 18, 1919, an American 
Representative Goodwin, in Budapest contacted 
the ministry of RUSZKA KRAJINA, forwarding 
questions to them, which were given to him in 
Paris. "Are the Uhro-Rusin people satisfied with 
the People's Law No. X.? What is their opinion 
with regards to joining another State 
(Czechoslovakia)? The reply was: The Uhro- 
Rusins had no contact with the Czechoslovak 
State, their economic interests bound them to 

5. PUBLICATION OF THE HUNGARIAN 
FRONTIER ..p. 10. Karolyi Ministry Peoples 
Law No. X. 

166 



Hungary. (6) 

On February 28, 1919 Representative Goodwin 
advised the Ministry that Paris informed him to 
go personally to the Rusin territory. He left on 
March 18th and stayed for two days in the Rusin 
territory. <T) 

On March 18, 1919 the Rusin Government 
Council met at Munkacs. After the meeting of 
Ministers which adjourned the 23rd of March, 
the Ministers began to negotiate with the 
Hungarian Government. (8) 

Negotiations were proceeding slowly and with 
many difficulties. The Rusin's Ministry wanted 
to declare all the counties peopled by the Rusins, 
as autonomous territory. Hungary found it 
inadvisable that through the already proclaimed 
education in the Rusin language, i.e. the in- 
telligentia of Rusin nationality might spring up 
and with it a Rusin problem. 

Finally they came to a conclusion that there 
are four villages only which were in the Rusin 
territory and therefore in question. To decide 
this question, another meeting was set for March 
20, at which the Ministers were present when 
VYX had delivered the ultimatum. The 
ministerial Council decided to resign and the 
following day the Council Government took over 
the rule. 

At this time the Czech occupation troops were 
standing at the west bank of the Ung (U2) river. 
The reason for this was that on the east bank of 
the Ung river were Hungarian forces. 

In the meantime Ukrainian troops also ap- 
peared in the Rusin territory, but these 

6. HANAK K. WALTER, op, cit. p. 14. 
MINORITY GRIEVANCES IN RUSSINSKO. 
p. 11. 

7. MINORITY GRIEVANCES IN RUSSINSKO. 
p. 11 

8. MINORITY GRIEVANCES IN RUSSINSKO 
op. cit. p. 11 

167 



Ukrainians attached more importance to the 
maintenance of good relations with Hungary 
than with the Rusins. Therefore the invading 
Ukrainian army soon retreated. But, by the I Oth 
of March the situation changed. The Hungarian 
troops were dispersed by Communists and the 
occupation was carried out without any risk. 

Soon the occupation of the Rusin territory was 
complete. A month later on March 13th the 
Urfgvar Council resigned, though they still were 
firm for autonomy. (9) 

What brought about these sudden changes? 

1. The Czechs obtained the Rusin territory by 
a deception of Gregory I. Zsatkovich on one side 
and on the other side the Peace Conference, 

2. The Rusin Territory was occupied by a 
violation of the Peace Treaty signed September 
10,, 1918 and of all other Peace Treaties, the 
Czech Government not only failed to grant full 
autonomy as stipulated, but even withdrew the 
autonomy already existing which was put in 
force by the Karolyi Hungarian Government. 

3. The Rusins never and nowhere accepted 
the above ruling, only, by tacit during the 
military occupation. 

4. The most opportune manner would be to 
insist that the autonomy by. granted to all those 
counties which were set dbwn in the 
DECLARATION of Charenton. which are the 
Rusin territories. This is The only way they would 
express their autonomous will and regain their 
territory. 0(0 

MINORITY GRIEVANCES IN RUSSINSKO 
The minority protection of the territory of the 

Rusins -in the northeastern southern Carpathian 

mountains, may be viewed: 

9. WALTER K. HANAK. Op. cit. pp. 15- Hi 

10. Minority GRIEVANCES IN RUSSINSKO. p. 
14v Miller and: "My Diary a-t the Conference of 
Peace". N.Y. 1924. p. Ifil 

168 



1. The minority grievances in the strict 
sense, those in connection with language, 
education, public administration and justice of 
the Hungarians. 

2. The general grievances as violation or 
autonomous rights secured to the Rusins by the 
Treaty of St. Germaine-en-Laye September 10, 
1919: 

Article No. 7 of the Treaty says: "No 
Czechoslovak citizen may be restricted to the use 
of any language". In spite of this, the Czechs, 
after occupying the Rusin Territory on May 1919, 
introduced the Czech language in the schools and 
most of the Rusin teachers were dismissed. 
THE VIOLATION OF AUTONOMY RIGHTS 
The Treaty of St. Germaine concluded by the 
Allied and Associated Powers with Czechs 
September 10, 1919, in Article 10 provided the 
following : 

The Czechoslovak Government engages to 
grant to the territory of the Rusins lying south of 
the Carpathians, between the frontiers fixed by 
the Aiiieu and Associated Powers, such organs of 
self-government within the Czechoslovak State 
as shall afford the utmost autonomy compatible 
with the due maintenance of this Czechoslovak 
State. 

Article No. 11: The territory of the Rusins, 
lying south of the Carpathian mountains, shall 
have an autonomous Provincial Assembly. This 
Provincial Assembly and religious affers, as 
well as in local administration and in all other 
matters which the laws of the Czechoslovak 
State shall place within its sphere of activity. 
The Governor of the Rusin territory shall be 
nominated by the President of the Czechoslovak 
Republic and he shall be responsible to the Rusin 
Provincial Assembly. 

Since the establishment of the Czech civil 
administration eight years ago. the territory 
south of the Carpathians is still without a 

169 



Provincial Assembly, whereas according to 
paragraph VTII of the letter dated May B. 1920 of 
M.. Millerand (Frenchman) of the Hungarian 
Delegation, states, that the Czechs should have 
convoked the Provincial Assembly of the 
autonomous area at the time of the signing of the 

Ppjce Treaty. 

Furthermore: The Allied and Associated 
Powers arranged with the Czechoslovak State, 
that the measure of the above agreement, in- 
sofar as they concern ethnographical, religious 
and linguistic minorities, are placed under the 
protection of the League of Nations and not- 
withstanding that the Czechoslovak State bin- 
dingly declare that it will respect the autonomy 
of the Rusins in an especial manner and grant to 
the population of the Rusin autonomous province 
all facilities for the expression of the wishes. 

VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT OF 
SELF-DETERMINATION 

The provisions of Article 12 of the Minority 
Pact according to which the officials of the Rusin 
territory should have been selected from among 
the inhabitants of the territory, this has been 
completely ignored. 

The Czech rule effected the economic cir- 
cumstances of the Rusins south of the nor- 
theastern Carpathian mountains as a 
catastrophe. 

It is well known that the mountainous 
territory of the Rusins does not produce wheat, 
rye, maize crops, the climate is too severe to 
grow the necessary supply of crops for their 
livelihood. When the Czechs closed the boun- 
daries, the Rusins lost the economic sources and 
opportunities of livelihood. Entire districts were 
destitute of food and the poor Rusins were for- 
bidden to seek their livelihood across the border. 



170 



HISTORICAL FACTS ABOUT THE RUSINS (1) 
OF PODKARP ATSKA RUS AFTER THE FIRST 
WORLD WAR 1914-1918 

The Uhro-Rusins of the United States of 
America knew well the circumstances and. life 
conditions of their brothers dwelling in nor- 
theastern Hungary. The war was coming to an 
end; therefore their desire was to help their 
brother Rusins. 

A meeting was called July 23, 1918, at which 
the following resolutions were made: 

1. That the Uhro-Rusins must get full in- 
dependence and if this was not possible, then 

2. The Uhro-Rusins should unite with their 
brothers of Galicia and Bukovina, and if this 
would be impossible then, 

3. They must have Autonomy. 

This memorandum was personally handed to 
Woodrow Wilson, the President of the United 
States of America, by Gregory I. Zsatkovich on 
October 12, 1918. <2> 

President Woodrow Wilson's advice was that 
the first two requests of the memorandum were 

l.YUHASZ SR. MICHAEL. "WILSON'S 
PRINCIPLES IN CHECHOSLOVAK 
PRACTICE" p. I. : Medieval Latin writers call 
these people RUTHENIANS and this name 
was adopted by modern foreign authors. 
During the political, economic and cultural 
union with Hungary, they called themselves 
UHRO-RUSINS, or RUSINS. Since they had 
united with Czechoslovakia, they call them- 
selves CARPATHO-RUSINS in order to in- 
dicate their distinct individual national 
character, custom, culture and language, 
which distinguish them from other branches of 
the RUSIN race living in GALICIA, 
BUKOVINA and SOUTHERN RUSSIA. 
2. ZSATKOVICH I. GREGORY. "Otkrytie" 
P. 1. 

171 



not practical, and it would not please the Mid- 
European States. Acting under the instructions 
of the American National Council of Uhro- 
Rusins, Gregory I. Zsatkovich, as their 
representative, had hoped for Autonomy. 

The Uhro-Rusins were accepted October 23, 
1919, into membership of the Mid-European 
Union. With this they were recognized by the 
representatives of this Union, namely: 
Czechoslovaks, Poles, Jugoslavs, Ukrainians, 
Lithuanians, Romanians, Unredeemed Greeks, 
Italian Irrindentists, Armenians, Albanians, 
and the Zionists (Jews of Jerusalem), as a 
precise division of nationalities, and as such 
approved by the known "WILSON PRINCIPLES 
OF SELF-DETERMINATION, they were free to 
establish a form for future government. 

The above-mentioned Union announced in 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania October 18, 1918 the 
following: (3) 

"We Uhro-Rusins, in our name and the name 
of our Rusin brothers in Europe solemnly an- 
nounce, that we place all our national sources in 
the bands of our Allies against our general 
enemies. For this reason, let the world know that 
we have an essential doctrine we wish to follow. 
A doctrine which will incorporate our Uhro- 
Rusins in the constitution of friendly nations and 
independent governments .... Accepted by the 
undersigned, the following is given as a foun- 
dation of principle for all free nations: (4) 

1. May 15, 1919 the National Council of Uhro- 
Rusins recommended Gregory I. Zsatkovich, to 
President Thomas G. Masaryk, as a chairman of 
organizing the ministry of the State. 

2. That there should be NO SECRET 
DIPLOMACY that all common treaties and 

3. PROSVITA-ENLIGHTENMENT. "The 
Tragic Tale of Podkarpatska Rus" 
McKeesport, Pa. November 1961. pp 1-4 

4. HUNGARIAN GOVERNMENT. "Minority 
Grievances in Russinsko". Budapest 1928. p. 6. 

172 



agreements between nations, should be made 
public prior to their adoption and im- 
plementation. 

The signers of this declaration and 
representatives of independent peoples bind 
themselves to the presented principles, which 
will be in the organizational law of government 
later organized by nations. 

Signed by: Thomas G. Masaryk, Gregory I. 
Zsatkovich and 10 other representatives. (5> 

The above mentioned excerpts are from the 
so-called DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENT, 
OPPRESSED NATIONS OF MID-EUROPE, 
accepted December 25, 1918 and published 
December 26, 1918, signed in Hotel Bellevue - 
Stratford, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania by 
representatives of the Uhro-Rusins of the United 
States of America and through them for the 
Uhro-Rusins of Hungary. This move was ap- 
proved May 9, 1919 by the CENTRAL 
NATIONAL COUNCIL IN U2HOROD, in the 
presence of five officials and members of the 
AMERICAN NATIONAL COUNCIL OF UHRO- 
RUSINS 

Gregory I. Zsatkovich conferred with 
President Thomas G. Masaryk about the 
possibility of a federation among the 
Czechoslovaks and the Rusins. Thomas G. 
Masaryk was questioned if he would agree to a 
federation of Uhro-Rusins with the 
Czechoslovaks. Thomas G. Masaryk's reply 
was : If the Uhro-Rusins decided to unite with the 
Czechoslovak Republic, they will form a full 
AUTONOMOUS STATE. As for the boundaries of 
PODKARPATSKA RUS: the boundaries will be 
so arranged that the Uhro-Rusins will be 
satisfied . These were the basic steps laid down : 
a total AUTONOMOUS STATE, in a federation 
with Czechoslovakia and satisfactory boundaries 
with the Uhro-Rusins. (6) 

5. PROSVITA ENLIGHTENMENT. Op. cit. pp. 
6-7. HANAK K. WALTER. "The Sub- 
carpathian Question 1918-1945". p. 10 

6. ZSATKOVICH I. GREGORY. Op. cit. p. 2. 

173 



These promises were widely publicized in 
American Uhro-Rusin newspapers. The 
AMERICAN NATIONAL COUNCIL OF UHRO- 
RUSINS unanimously accepted the following 
resolutions in Scranton, Pennsylvania, 
November 12, 1918. 

"That the Uhro-Rusins, with the widest in- 
dependent law as a STATE, on federative basis, 
is uniting with the Czechoslovak Democratic 
Republic, with the conditions, that all original 
Uhro-Rusin counties must belong to the RUSIN 
STATE namely: Spis, Saris, Zemplin, Abauj, 
Gemer, Borsod, Ung, Bereg, Ugocsa and 
Maramaros." 

The following evening on the 13th of 
November 1918, Gregory I. Zsatkovich presented 
a copy of the above-mentioned meeting minutes 
to President Thomas G. Masaryk in the 
Czechoslovak Legation at Washington, D.C. 
Reading it he expressed his great joy and ap- 
proval saying the Federation is progressing. 
Thomas G. Masaryk also reminded Gregory I. 
Zsatkovich, that this is the decision of the 
members of the National Council, which can be 
brought up at the PEACE CONFERENCE in 
Paris. Then they discussed the plebiscite: 
Gregory I. Zsatkovich assured Thomas G. 
Masaryk without doubt that the plebiscite will 
approve the recommendation of the National 
Council. 

November 12, 1918, President Thomas G. 
Masaryk gave the minutes of the above- 
mentioned meeting to Captain Pisecki, who in 
return on February 13, 1919 showed them to 
Simeon Szabo, President of the RUSIN 
COUNCIL OF UZHOROD. He expressed the 
wishes of his committee to have Autonomy for 
PODKARPATSKA RUS (named by them Ruska 
Kraina). but united with Hungary. The other 
members of the committee of Uhro-Rusins of. the 
United States of America were asking, what the 
Rus'tns will receive if they unite with the 

174 



Czechoslovakia. (7) 

Thp voting of the Rusin Americans gave the 
following results: 

To unite with Czechoslovakia B7 percent 

To unite with Ukraine 28 percent 

To unite with Russia 1 per cent 

To unite with Hungary less than l percent 

To unite with Galicia less than i percent 

To a full independence less than 2 percent 

The majority of the plebiscite approved and 
recommended to the National Council, that it 
presents the result of the plebiscite and the 
minutes of the meeting held November 12, 1918, 
to the PEACE CONFERENCE. Entrusted with 
this work was Gregory I. Zsatkovic and John G. 
Gardos. A cablegram was sent by Commissioner 
Perglerom to Edward Benes in Paris, con- 
cerning this matter. (8) , 

February 13, 1919 the commission arrived in 
Paris, where they met Anthony Bcskid 
President and representative ol the PRESOV 
NATIONAL RUSIN COUNCIL This lommissioii 
conferred with the Czechoslovak representatives 
Karl Kramarz and Edward Benes at the Peace 
Conference. Beside the publicity and minutes of 
the November 12, 1918 meeting, other facts were 
presented concerning the Union with 
Czechoslovakia, i.e.: 

a) Copy of minutes of the PRESOV 
NATIONAL RUSIN COUNCIL of January 7, 
1919. 

bi Copy of the meeting of the SVALAVA 
NATIONAL RUSIN COUNCIL of December 16, 
1918. 

The above-mentioned documents were placed 
in the "Memoires No. 6" as true facts, upon 

7. ZSATKOVICH I. GREGORY. Op. cit., p. 2. 
Declaration of Independence Oppressed 
Nations of Mid-Europe. 

8. ZSATKOVICH I. GREGORY. Op. cit. p. 3. 
HANAK K. WALTER. Op. cit. p. 11. 

175 



which a document was proposed, expressing the 
desire of the Uhro-Rusins for federation with 
Czechoslovakia. 

Memoires No. 6 also presented the following 
mutual agreement of facts: 

1. That PODKARPATSKA RUS. is a STATE, 
quoting page II: only four Roumanian villages 
would be found in the Rusin State. They are 
turned over to Roumania in compensation for a 
little district of Akna Slatina, with its salt mines, 
an indispensable necessity for the Rusins and the 
Czechoslovak State. 

2. That the boundaries of PODKARPATSKA 
RUS are temporary and can be changed and 
improved by a special treaty between the 
Czechoslovak State and Podkarpatska Rus. (») 

3. The Rusin population is 567,867 according 
to the 1910 census of all parishes in Hungary. 

4. That the Rusins live in compact masses in 
the following counties: SpiS, Saris, Zemplin, 
Ung, Bereg, Ugocsa and Maramaros. 

5. That a Union with Czechoslovakia should 
be included in the new State only if the Rusins 
themselves accepted and desired it. 

According to the facts and there is not the 
slightest suspicion about them, the Rusins were 
making arrangements for a similar Federation 
with Czechoslovak State, within boundaries 
satisfactory to the Rusins. (!0) 

Through the intercession of Edward Benes, 
the Rusin Commission in Paris received an 
audience February 19, 1919 with Colonel House, 
who was President Woodrow Wilson's 
representative at the AMERICAN PEACE 
CONFERENCE and with the French Com- 
missioner Tardieu, the President of the mighty 
ten-member committee February 24, 1919. In the 
presence of both diplomats, Gregory I 
Zsatkovics presented the documents and a short 
history of the Uhro-Rusin action concerning' 
Rusin Statehood. (The American Department of 
En term 1 Affairs was previously notified about 
the action of lh« National Council of Rusins in 
America.) 

176 



On March 3, 1919 this information was well 
received by the Five Member Committee. The 
Rusin Committee came up with more requests 
contacting Karl Kramarz and Edward Benes. 
The requested affairs are known as the 
WILSON'S FOURTEEN POINTS". 
THE FOURTEEN POINTS JANUARY 8, 1918 

President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed the 
Fourteen Points as the American program of 
peace in an address to Congress. 

The goal of the FOURTEEN POINTS was to 
make the world safe to live in: the Fourteen 
Points are as follows: 

1 Open covenants of peace, openly arrived 
at, after which there shall be no private In- 
ternational understandings of any kind, but 
diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in 
the public view. 

2. Absolute freedom of navigation upon the 
Seas, outside territorial waters, alike in peace 
and in war. except as the Seas may be closed in 
whole in part by International action for the 
enforcement of International covenants. 

3. The removal, so far as possible, of all 
economic barriers and the establishment of an 
equality of trade conditions among all the 
nations consenting to the Peace and obligating 
themselves for its maintenance. 

4. Adequate guarantees given and taken that 
national aniwuiients will be reduced to the 
lowest point consistent with domestic safety. 

5. A free, open-minded, and absolutely im- 
partial adjustment of all colonial claims, ob- 
servance of the principle that in determining all 
such questions of sovereignity the interests of the 
population concerned must have equal weight 
with the equitable claims of the government 
whose title is to be determined. 

6. The evacuation of all Russian territory and 
such a settlement of all questions of affecting 
Russia, as will secure the best and freest 
cooperation of other nations of the world in ob- 
taining for her an unhampered and unem- 

177 



On March 3, 1919 this information was well 
received by the Five Member Committee. The 
Rusin Committee came up with more requests 
contacting Karl Kramarz and Edward Benes. 
The requested affairs are known as the 
WILSON'S FOURTEEN POINTS". 
THE FOURTEEN POINTS JANUARY 8, 1918 

President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed the 
Fourteen Points as the American program of 
peace in an address to Congress. 

The goal of the FOURTEEN POINTS was to 
make the \vr>rld safe to live in: the Fourteen 
Points arf as follows: 

1 Open rovenants of peace, openly arrived 
at. after which there shall be no private In- 
ternational understandings of any kind, but 
diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in 
the public view. 

2. Absolute freedom of navigation upon the 
Seas, outside territorial waters, alike in peace 
and in war. except as the Seas may be closed in 
whole in part by International action for the 
enforcement of International covenants. 

3. The removal, so far as possible, of all 
economic barriers and the establishment of an 
equality of trade conditions among all the 
nations consenting to the Peace and obligating 
themselves for its maintenance. 

4. Adequate guarantees given and taken that 
national ariimiiienis will be reduced to the 
lowest point consistent with domestic safety. 

5. A free, open-minded, and absolutely im- 
partial adjustment of all colonial claims, ob- 
servance of the principle that in determining all 
such questions of sovereignity the interests of the 
population concerned must have equal weight 
with the equitable claims of the government 
whose title is to be determined. 

6. The evacuation of all Russian territory and 
such a settlement of all questions of affecting 
Russia, as will secure the best and freest 
cooperation of other riations of the world in ob- 
taining for her an unhampered and unem- 

177 



barrassed opportunity for the independent 
determination of her own political development 
and national policy and assure her of a sincere 
welcome into the society of free nations under 
institutions of her own choosing. 

7. Belgium, the whole world will agree, must 
be evacuated and restored, without any attempt 
to limit the sovereignty which she enjoys in 
common with all other free nations. 

8. All French territory should be freed and 
the invaded portion restored and the wrong done 
to France by Prussia in 1871 in the matter of 
Alsace Lorraine, which has unsettled the peace 
of the world for nearly fifty years should be 
righted. 

9. A readjustment of the frontiers of Italy 
should be affected along clearly recognizable 
lines of nationality. 

10. The peoples of Austria-Hungary, whose 
place among the nations we wish to see 
safeguarded and assured, should be accorded 
the freest opportunity of autonomous develop- 
ment. 

11. Roumania, Serbia and Montenegro should 
be evacuated, occupied territories restored; 
Serbia accorded free and secure access to the 
sea. 

12. The Turkish portion of the present Ot- 
toman Empire should be assured a secure 
sovereignty, but the other nationalities which 
are now under Turkish rule should be assured 
an undoubted security of life and an absolutely 
unmolested opportunity of autonomous 

9. PROSVITA - ENLIGHTENMENT. Op. cit. 
pp. 7-8. 

10. MEMOIRE. Pp. 12, 1+9: "Rusko-Slovenska 
hranica ustanovlena jest vremenno... sija 
hranica ( rusko-slovenska ) mozet byti zminena i 
polipsena, jesli tak ielajetsja, special'nym 
dohovorom meidu Ceskoslovenskin Statom i 
Karpatsko-Russijeju, Rusineju. 

178 



development, and the Dardanelles should be 
permanently opened as a free passage to the 
ships and commerce of all nations under In- 
ternational guarantees. 

13. An independent Polish State should be 
erected which should include the territories 
inhabited by indisputable Polish population, 
which should be assured a free and secure access 
to the sea and whose political and economic 
independence and territorial integrity should be 
guaranteed by International covenant. 

14. A general association of nations must be 
formed under specific covenant for the purpose 
of affording mutual guarantees of political in- 
dependence and territorial integrity to great and 
small States alike. (11) 

George Creel, head of the American Com- 
mittee of Public Information, scattered over the 
world some sixty million pamphlets, booklets 
and leaflets containing "WILSONISM". The 
Allied military leaders perceiving the 
propaganda value of the Fourteen Points, rained 
countless leaflets upon Germany and Austria- 
Hungary from balloons and aeroplanes. This 
weakened the morale of troops at the front. ( 12) 

On March 10, 1919 the American Commission 
of Rusin conferred with President Thomas G. 
Masaryk presenting to him the document in- 
cluding the Fourteen Points. In a short time they 
left for Bratislava to meet with minister Srobar. 
Finally they arrived in Uihorod March 15, 1919. 

Before arriving in Uzhorod this Commission 
conferred with the PreSov National Rusin 
Council, which approved all the work done by the 
Commission and authorized it to work in the 
interest of uniting the THREE RUSIN 
NATIONAL COUNCILS, namely: PreSov, 
UShorod and Chust. Their goal was to get 
Autonomy for Podkarpatska Rus in a Federative 
Union of different countries. The PreSov Council 

11. ZSATKOVICS I. GREGORY Op. cit. p. 6. 

12. ZSATKOVICH I. GREGORY. Op. cit. p. 7. 

179 



with Czechoslovakia, the Uzhorod Council with 
Hungary and the Chust Council with Ukraine. 

The work to bring all three Councils to a 
mutual understanding and cooperation 
proceeded with great results. The American 
Committee returned to Paris at the end of April, 
seeking permission from the Peace Conference 
for the Czechoslovak Army to occupy the eastern 
part of the Uz (Ung) river a territory at that time 
occupied by the Hungarian Communists. 

On May 8, 1919 the Union of the three Councils 
was achieved and the new Council was named; 
"CENTRAL RUSIN NATIONAL COUNCIL" 
which unanimously approved the American 
Rusin action. 

Here are some of the approved decisions: 

1. "Elias Hadzsega stressed the greal need of 
ritir airfonnmv \ known writer <nv«- "*hat only 
such nations can be united in Federation, who 
are of the same race, who are of one thought and 
feeling . That is what our Rusin Americans did, 
they asked President Woodrow Wilson to help us 
unite with Czechoslovakia. His resolution was: 
the Czechoslovak State and Podkarpatska Rus 
are united into one state, a state with one legal 
citizenship. One state which in foreign, military 
and financial matters is governed by 
Czechoslovakia and in other matters the Rusin 
State is self-governing. Rusin language was to be 
used in legal matters, military units were to 
have Rusin officers and the time of Military 
Service was to be determined by the Rusin 
Government. (12) 

2. Augustine Volosin stressed the importance 
of united powers by presenting an addendum 
about the unity of the Councils: Chust, Uzhorod, 
PreSov into one central Rusin National Council 
which would protect the Rusin interests: 

a) To protect the general interests of the 
Rusin people. 

b) To prepare an arrangement for the ad- 
ministration of enlightenment and the education 
of the Rusins - unanimously accepted. 

180 



1" On May 15, 1919 the Central Rusin Council 
recommended Gregory I. Zsatkovich to 
President Thomas G. Masaryk as president of 
organizing the Ministry of State, a recom- 
mendation which was delivered to the Ministry 
the next day and this can be noted in the minutes 
of May 16th meeting. < 13) 

Sealed minutes {"The Chairman greets 
Gregory I. Zsatkovich as an honored President 
of the Central Rusin National Council, informing 
him about the unanimous wish of the Council, 
that he accept the great task, which is very 
important for us concerning the organization of 
our autonomy and to be the First Minister.") 

"Gregory I, Zsatkovich expressed his 
gratitude to the Council for their confidence in 
him and stated that he is ready to sacrifice all his 
energy for the good of his Rusin people. On ac- 
count of obligation and family matters, he 
cannot remain in Europe, but without violating 
this American citizenship, he is ready to accept 
the undertaking for a few months, in the 
organizing of the Rusin State, if President 
Thomas G. Masaryk approves our proposal". 
At this mevttng the Council concretely ap- 
proved the action of American Kusins especially 
the: "FOURTEEN POINTS" presented to the 
representatives of the Czechoslovak Republic." 

"In the name of the Council a message was 
sent to prepare a plan of agreement and the need 
of the Rusin State concerning autonomy. Elias 
Hadzsega proposes that the Commission in 
genera] accept the points of the American 
Commission. 

The Central Council approves the decision of 
the Commission and according to the 
memorandum of American representatives, set 
a plan of requests in the following manner. 

1. The Rusins will form an Independent State 
in the Czechoslovak Rusin Republic. 

13. ZSATKOVICH I. GREGORY Op. cit. p. 7. 
181 



The boundaries of the Rusin State are 
arranged as will be set by the representatives of 
the Rusin State and the representatives of 
Czechoslovakia. 

In all Interior Affairs the Rusin State will be 
independent 

2. The above presented conditions and other 
understandings and transactions are necessary 
for the existence and growth of the Rusin State 
and Czechoslovak Republic. This will be in- 
cluded in a special treaty, which will be decided 
legally and brought forth by the representatives 
of the Rusin State and the Czechoslovak 
Republic. 

3. Until this final treaty is signed, until that 
tune the Rusin territory will be placed as a 
temporary or de facto Rusin State or de facto it 
will include the following territory: From the 
Roumanian line which will be re-established by 
the Peace Conference; from the Hungarian line 
established by the Peace Conference. On this line 
the point, where it meets with the western 
boundary of Szifcszo District as far as the river 
Hernad, the Hernad river to the source of the 
Torisa (Tarcza) river further on to the north the 
Torisa river to the point where the river passes 
the boundary of Spis and Saris counties. From 
here the southern boundary of ( Hethars ) L'ipjani 
District and the western boundary of Lublo 
District in Spis county to Popradremete. 

This temporary or de facto Rusin State will be 
governed by a Rusin Minister, who is appointed 
by the President of the Czechoslovak Republic, 
and this Minister will appoint other officials of 
the State, necessary for a good administration 
and temporary government of a de facto Rusin 
State. 

In all disputes and misunderstandings or 
contrary interpretations of the special treaty 
between the Czechoslovak State and the Rusin 
State, there is a right to appeal to the highest 
Tribunal, having jurisdiction to decide in such 
matters, the League of Nations. 

182 



,■; 



The decision of this League will be obligating 
on both parties. 

The above-mentioned action of the Central 
Rusin National Council was made during 
revolutionary times, especially with separation 
of Hungary, and was published by the three 
National Councils. In itself it does not look at the 
recognition of October 26, 1918 and the Memoire 
No. 6 and made of Podkarpatska Rus some kind 
of a revolutionary National Council, which 
pronounced it to be a de facto State. 

One delegation composed of 112 officials and 
members of the Central Rusin National Council 
journeyed to Prague (Praha) and there in the 
name of Podkarpatska Rus solemnly presented 
the above minutes to President Thomas G. 
Masaryk on May 23, 1919, and through him to the 
Czechoslovak Republic. In the afternoon of the 
same day a 15-member * Special Commission 
conferred in particular with the president, where 
concrete problems were judged and decided 
especially concerning the organization of 
Podkarpatska Rus. 

These minutes <*sre also sent to Edward 
Benes Council and tc the present Peace Con- 
ference as a final proof of the desire of the Rusins 
to unite in Federation with Czechoslovak 
Republic, 

President Thomas G. Masaryk had previously 
notified the government and people of 
Czechoslovak about the possibility of 
Czechoslovak and Rusin Union in his com- 
munication known as "THE FIRST MESSAGE" 
January 1919. 

On May 26, 1919 the delegation returned to 
Podkarpatska Rus and Gregory I. Zsatkovich 
remained in Prague as an empowered 
representative, to begin negotiating plans to 
organize the Rusin State. On account of the 
Czechoslovak and Hungarian Communist war 
the conferences were postooned to July 13-19-22, 
1919. (14) 

14. ZSATKOVICH I. GREGORY Op. cit. p. 8 
183 



On March 22nd President Thomas G. Masaryk 
gave Gregory I. Zsatkovich a copy of the minutes 
of the Peace Conference, concerning the 
autonomy of Podkarpatska Rus. A cablegram 
was sent by Edward Benes to President Thomas 
G. Masaryk informing Gregory I. Zsatkovich, 
that the Peace Conference has the intention to 
settle the final boundaries between 
Czechoslovakia and Podkarpatska Rus, This was 
a surprise to Masaryk and Zsatkovich, because 
until then it was agreed that the boundaries will 
be settled peacefully between the Czechoslovaks 
and the Rusins. 

Gregory I. Zsatkovich read the conditions of 
the Peace Conference paragraph 2 (Second part 
of the St. Germaine stipulation), in which the 
jurisdiction of the Podkarpatska Rus Sojm 
(Diet) is defined. In this paragraph there is the 
word "local", which is incorporated in the 
Czechoslovak Constitution (paragraph 2, section 
4) as "mistni" (local) this could be a deceptive 
or fraudulent meaning and could not be ex- 
plained as "vnutrennyj" (interior, internal), 
which has the meaning of joint laws of one 
autonomous State. 

President Thomas G. Masaryk assured 
Gregory I- Zsatkovich, that this will not cause 
any hardship especially because of the fact, that 
the first paragraph (10th paragraph of St. 
Germaine) guarantees the Rusins the most wide 
autonomy. Zsatkovich accepted the whole text as 
it was presented. 

In turn Gregory I. Zsatkovich informed 
President Thomas G. Masaryk that his 
obligation is to go to Paris at once, to assure the 
Rusins that their affairs are presented exactly 
according to treaty, as the facts in the statistics 
given to the Peace Conference, as marked in 
paragraph 6. and that the Hungarian statistics 
cannot be depended upon. {IS) 

15. ZSATKOVICH I. GREGORY Op. cit< p. 10 

184 



Gregory I. Zsatkovich arrived in Paris on the 
14th, conferred with Edward Benes, the Minister 
of External Affairs of Czechoslovakia, who 
shortly informed Zsatkovich of the unanimous 
decision of the Peace Conference which because 
of private reasons made the boundaries of 
Podkarpatska Rus as small as possible. Edward 
Benes expressed his fear, that regardless what 
move Zsatkovich will make, there will be no 
satisfaction to the Rusins. Finally the Peace 
Conference's intention was set, to make the 
Slovak and Rusin boundaries at the Uz (Ung) 
river. (16) 

Gregory I. Zsatkovich strongly protested, 
saying our main reason to make the union was 
the fact, that with this union the Rusins will not 
be divided into two or more parts. Furthermore 
the decision of the Peace Conference is not only 
unjust, but also incredible. Gregory I. 
Zsatkovich expressed his feeling, that he could 
not understand how the Peace Conference has 
such interest in setting boundaries. He 
responded with a remark, "I am certain if we 
agree ourselves concerning the boundaries, the 
Peace Conference will accept our agreement" 
Zsatkovich recommended the boundaries 
described in paragraph II. the minutes of the 
Central Rusin National Council of May 16, 1919. 

Edward Benes spread out the map, seeing 
that the boundaries included the Lublo District in 
Spis county and all the territory north and east 
from the rivers Torisa and Hernad, i.e. SpiS, 
Saris and the whole Zemplin counties. Edward 
Benes at once replied : "I am convinced that the 
Slovaks will not agree to that." In reply Gregory 
I. Zsatkovich said: "1 am not dealing with the 
Slovaks, but the Czechoslovak government, on 
the ground of the understanding made and 
presented to the Peace Conference." Finally it 
was decided to let the Peace Conference 
establish ONLY temporary boundaries between 
Czechoslovakia and Podkarpatska Rus. Edward 
Benes agreed with this reasoning, but 

16. ZSATKOVICH I,. GREGORY. Op- ciLp. 11 

185 



Zsatkovich again asked him : ' 'But what 
guarantee do I have that the Peace Conference 
will accept this agreement?" Edward Benes 
replied: "I promise you, that the Peace Con- 
ference will do so as we agreed, if not, I am 
promising you, that I will do so as we agreed, if 
not, I am promising you, that I will not sign the 
conditions of the Peace Treaty." 

Gregory I. Zsatkovich returned to Prague 
July 26, 1919, delivered Edward Benes' letter to 
the President of Czechoslovakia and also his own 
letter, in which he writes: "It would not be 
proper for me to explain justice to my people, if 
such boundaries are set (namely the Uz river)." 
After a serious consideration Gregory I. 
Zsatkovich has prepared a form of a temporary 
pact which he enclosed, "i truthfully believe that 
this is the minimum desire that the Rusins will 
accept. I firmly hope that the procedure will be 
accepted by you without any changes." 

In the above-mentioned agreement Gregory I. 
Zsatkovich recommended the boundary dispute 
be settled in the following manner: 

1. "That from the day after October 1, 1919to 
the execution of the formal agreement of 
Podkarpatska Rus (UUSINIA), it would con- 
stitute and maintain the following marked 
territory namely: 

2. All territory west of the Uz (Ung) river, 
containing parts of SpiS, Saris, Zemplin and Ung 
counties, \rtiich especially are particularly on 

the Map of Podkarpatska Rus west of the UZ 

(Ung) river. (17) 

3. The territory especially designated and 

described on the Map as exhibit "B" will be 

known and marked as a disputed territory, and 
in the disputed territory there will be no national 
census of May 1, 1920. 

4. From May 1, 1920 the census will be made, 
by a two-member committee, one in the name of 
Czechoslovakia and one of Podkarpatska Rus, 

17. ZSATKOVICH I. GREGORY, Op. cit. p. 12 

186 



concerning the inhabitants in the disputed 
territory. The disputed territory in the counties 
of Spis, Saris, Zemplin will be administered by 
Czechoslovakia and the territory in Ung county 
by Podkarpatska Rus. The Rusins will be free to 
speak, print and have legal meetings in the 
disputed territory administered by 
Czechoslovakia, 

5. The yielding of the boundaries must be 
two-sided, not only the ethnical side shown by 
census, but also the economic, geographic and 
administrative manner of the needs of 
Podkarpatska Rus. (18) 

On July 29, 1919 Gregory I. Zsatkovich was 
present at a meeting with President Thomas G. 
Masaryk and Minister of Interior Svehla. 
Thomas G. Masaryk opposed the pact on the 
basis: that a pact can be dealt with only by two 
autocratic States and Podkarpatska Rus has no 
constitutional representatives. (19) 

After a lengthy conference the conclusion was 
that all said it must be put in writing. Thomas G. 
Masaryk replied: "Two of us will do that, 
(Masiryk and Zsatkovich). 

During this conference President Thomas G. 
Masaryk handed a cablegram to Gregory I. 
Zsatkovich, which he received from the 
American National Council of Rusins with a copy 
of his reply. The cablegram requested in- 
formation about the news report, that Gregory I. 
Zsatkovich had been wounded by Czech soldiers 
and that he is in the service of the Hungarian 
Bolsheviks. Zsatkovich felt that the contents of 
the cablegram necessitated his return to 
America to receive the approval of the American 
National Council of Rusins. to the mentioned 
agreement and to refute the report spread about 
him by the enemies of the Czechoslovak and 
Rusin Union. 

On July 29th Gregory I. Zsatkovich informed 
Edward Benes by mail, that he agreed on the 
boundary question in the manner expressed on 
the 24th of July, 1919. Not receiving any reply to 

18. ZSATKOVICH I. GREGORY, Op. cit. p.' 12 

187 



the correspondence, on August 1, 1919 Zsatkovieh 
went to the President's private secretary 
Jaroslav Cisar, explaining to him, that he must 
go to Paris at noon, but he must see the 
President. The President was occupied with 
many matters and could not give him an 
audience. In turn Gregory I. Zsatkovieh gave the 
private secretary a copy of the 
"PROCLAMATION" of August 20, 1919, ac- 
companied with his letter to the President of 
Czechoslovakia and waited for a reply. (20) 

In a private letter Gregory I. Zsatkovieh 
wrote the following: "In America I will be 
distrusted for my work, not having a formal 
letter about the report of matters agreed upon 
July 29, 1919 and which I hope to have approved 
by the American National Council of Rusins" 

19. ZSATKOVICH I. GREGORY. Op. cit p. 12 
YUHASZ Sr. MICHAEL. "Wilson's Prin- 
ciples in Czechoslovak Practice", p. 17. "In 
1918, when her independence from Austria 
was regained, Hungary voluntarily granted 
autonomy to Rusinsko. A Governor was ap- 
pointed and the autonomy of Russinsko was 
put into legal operation. Russinsko, therefore 
was an autonomous country, when she was 
annexed to Czechoslovakia. The Czechs 
nullified this autonomy, demoralized the 
Podkarpatski Rusins in religion, and morals, 
deprived them of their rights and ruined 
them economically, in order to break their 
resistance, so that they may more easily Be 
denationalized and thus their autonomy may 
become unnecessary. In order to accomplisn 
all these, the Czechs corrupted the 
Podkarpatski Rusin leaders and exiled those 
leaders who resisted the denationalization of 
their people. At the same time disseminating 
false information concerning the Podkar- 
patska Rus autonomy, the Czechs succeeded 
in misleading the Great Powers who signed 
the Treaty of St. Germaine-en-Laye and 
guaranteed the rights of the minorities." 

20. ZSATKOVICH I. GREGORY op. cit. p. 13 

188 



"The names of the four members of the Rusin 
Autonomy Committees are: Eugene Puza, 
Chust, Maramaros County, Julius Brascajko, 
Chust, Augustine Volosin U2horod and Vladimir 
Turkinak, Presdv, SariS County. 

Gregory I. Zsatkovich also stated that he has 
great need also for the Tomasevsky Map, which 
he left with the President. He wanted it to be 
returned to him through Jaroslav Cisar, if it 
would not be possible for him to have an 
audience with the President before his noon time 
departure. 

Gregory I. Zsatkovich also had a report 
prepared for the Central National Council in 
Uihorod, in which he remarked: "If you find the 
report proper and good for publication, please 
send it to USthorod." 

The private secretary took the letter to the 
President, soon returned saying the President 
cannot give him an audience. ' 'Please wait 
awhile!" Waiting for an hour, the secretary 
again went to the President and returned with a 
report addressed to the Central Rusin National 
Council in UZhorod. The secretary said, the 
President stated; "That all is in order". 
Zsatkovich replied: "Good, then I will deliver 
the letter to the Council, but I must have the 
signature of the President as a verification, that 
all is in order which corresponds with the verbal 
agreement of July 29, 1919." The Secretary 
replied, that the President is too occupied, but in 
such matters he is entrusted to verify the facts of 
truthfulness. 

Signed: Vide I President C.S.L. 
12, VIII, 1919 

Jaroslav Cisar 

Osobni tajemnik (21) 

As for the Tomasevsky Map, Zsatkovich was 
informed that the President does not have it 
since he gave it to a commission. 

Before his journey Gregory I. Zsatkovich 

21. ZSATKOVICH I. GREGORY op. cit. p. 14 

189 



personally handed the reports to Basil Takacs, 
secretary of the Central Rusin National Council 
in Paris, who was accompanied by Spaloj. This 
report was also to be given to the American 
Rusins and is known as "THE PROCLAMATION 
OF AUGUST 12, 1919". 

CENTRAL RUSIN NATIONAL COUNCIL 
IN U2HOROD (22) 
Honorable President: 

After many conferences with President 
Thomas G. Masaryk and Svehla the Minister of 
internal affairs, I have the privilege to advise 
you, that the Czechoslovak Government ap- 
pointed me as the President of the Rusin 
Autonomous Directorium. { 23 > 

The Directorium will be made up of other four 
members and me, the other members will soon 
be appointed also. 

The members of the Directorium will work in 
agreement with General Hennoque in the parts 
of our State, where the Czechoslovak Govern- 
ment has no authority, until the Peace Con- 
ference decides the final matters of the State. 
After the decision of some of the problems, the 
President of Czechoslovakia, in agreement with 
the Peace Conference, will appoint the First 
Governor of RUSINIAN AUTONOMOUS 
STATE. The boundaries between Slovakia and 
RUSINIA will also be set. 

To our State will belong: O-Lublo district, SpiS 
county, the northern part of Saris and Zemplen 
counties and the northeastern part of Uz (Ung) 
county, Bereg, Ugocsa and MaramaroS counties. 
The other part, which we wished to have, 
remains neutral until the national census is 
completed. The national census will be directed 
under the leadership of a committee composed of 
Rusins and Czecho-slovaks. 

The neutral part of Uz (Ung) county will be 
administered by our authority. 

The Rusinian State (Podkarpatska Rus) will 

22. ZSATKOVICH I. GREGORY op. cit. p. 14 

23. ZSATKOVICH I. GREGORY op. cit. p. 15 

190 



be independent in matters of language, 
education, religion and in all internal matters. 

It will have its autonomous Diet in Uzhorod 
and besides this, it will have its representatives 
in Prague. 

At present I must go to the United States of 
America on official matters, to secure the moral 
cooperation of the Rusins in America. 

The boundaries between Roumania and 
Rusinia (Podkarpatska Rus) will be decided by 
the Peace Conference. 

So long, I remain with esteem 

Your friend, 
Gregory I. Zsatkovich 
Prague - August 12, 1919 
Videl: President C.S.L. 

Sent by the President, August 12, 1919 

Jaroslav dsar, Private Secretary 

During the time Zsatkovich was in the United 
States, the Proclamation of August 12, 1919 was 
verbally published in the Rusin American 
newspapers and all facts of the report were 
presented by Zsatkovich to the Rusin American 
Congress in the presence of the Rusin 
organizations in the United States of America. 
This Congress was held in Homestead, Penn- 
sylvania, September 12, 1919. At this Congress 
Gregory I. Zsatkovich publicly announced that 
Podkarpatska Rus will have an autonomy in the 
broadest meaning of the word, that the boun- 
daries will be arranged in the manner described 
in Zsatkovich's proclamation. In this delicate 
matter, the Rusins and Czechoslovaks will 
receive what they justly deserve. (24) 

Personally hearing this report from the 
Representative at the Peace Conference, and 
the President of the Directorium of our 
Motherland, the Congress approved the 
described plans with a great applause. 

In the United States Gregory I. Zsatkovich 

24. ZSATKOVICH I. GREOGRY. Op. Cit. p. 16 

191 



madt great success. He received from the ''Mid- 
European Union", the Mid-European Liberty 
Bell in 1918, the Bell which rang out October 26, 
1918 the "Declaration of Independence of the 
Oppressed Peoples", a document personally 
read and proclaimed to the whole world by 
President G. Masaryk (25) 

Gregory I. Zsatkovich, returning to Prague, 
personally handed a copy of minutes of the 
Congress of Rusins to Masaryk and a copy of the 
Reports presented at the Congress. The Rusin 
American newspapers published the nomination 
of Gregory I. Zsatkovich as the President of the 
Directorium" Proclaimed August 12, 1919". 

Gregory I. Zsatkovich was immensely happy 
about the approval of the American Rusins 
concerning the union with Czechoslovakia, but 
when notified that nothing had been done about 
the agreement and promises of the Treaty, 
(contract) by the Czechoslovak Government, he 
was angered. 

Nothing was said about the appointment to the 
Directorium, nor ahont the boundaries Fur- 
thermore, he was informed that the 
Czechoslovak Government sent Brejcha as a 
Chief of the Government Administration. His 
goal was to divide the Rusins into many fractions 
and ordered censorship of the newspapers as the 
President of the Directorium. 

Gregory I. Zsatkovich in a letter brought to 
the conference with Masaryk on October 13, 1919 
strongly protested against what had been done. 
The President replied: "I was waiting for your 
arrival, now the matter will progress, 
everything will be in order". On October 16, 1919, 
Gregory I. Zsatkovich conferred with President 
Thomas G. Masaryk and Minister Svehla. The 
result of this conference was, as soon as Brejcha 
returns from Uzhorod, the matter will be worked 
out by Svehla, Brejcha and Zsatkovich according 
to the General Statutes, for organizing and ad- 
ministering Podkarpatska Rus. Minister Svehla 

25. ZSATKOVICH I. GREOGRY. Op. Cit. p. 16 

192 



promised Zsatkovich that as soon as Brejcha 
arrives, he will notify him. 

As late as October 21st Zsatkovich had heard 
nothing although Brejcha was in Prague for four 
days. At 5 p.m. Minister Svehla gave Zsatkovich 
a plan in the presence of Brejcha, upon which all 
were to work, i.e., the General Statutes for the 
organizing and administering Podkarpatska 
RUS. (26) 

Gregory I. Zsatkovich disapproved this plan, 
stating that this is not a political nor an ac- 
ceptable matter in the understanding of the pact 
(contract). Svehla and Zsatkovich were trying to 
compromise. Brejcha revealed compromise is 
useless and worthless, and left the conference, 
thus ending it. After the meeting Svehla and 
Zsatkovich came to an understanding, that 
Zsatkovich is to put his opposition In writing, as a 
matter which can be discussed with Edward 
Benes, Minister of External Affairs, who was 
well versed with the intention of the Peace 
Conference. 

Copies of this refutation were given to Svehla, 
Benes, and one sent to President of 
Czechoslovakia, Thomas G. Masaryk. 

Gregory I. Zsatkovich was invited to a 
meeting with President Masaryk on October 30, 
and Benes was also present. As Zsatkovich says, 
"The President greeted both of us, holding in his 
hand my corrections, which I titled 'Correct 
Changes and Additions'; additions proposed to 
the Administration Plan." 

The corrections were discussed and approved. 

On November 4, Zsatkovich had presented to 
Benes and Svehla a copy of the General Statutes, 
which were agreeable to the Minister of External 
Affairs, Benes. Svehla also agreed with the 
agreement, saying that the document will be 
presented to the Council of Ministry on 
November 6. This document was not presented 
on this date. Therefore on November 8, Gregory 

26. ZSATKOVICH I. GREGORY. Op Cit. p. 17 

195 



Zsatkovich appealed to President Thomas G. 
Masaryk to intervene in this matter and see to it 
that it will be rushed. 

On the 10th of November, President Thomas 
G. Masaryk called a conference, at which a few 
corrections were made in Zsatkovich's copy of 
General Statutes and he remarked that he will 
speak with Svehla about the results of the con- 
ference and asked Gregory I. Zsatkovich also to 
speak to Svehla. 

Gregory I. Zsatkovich did speak to Svehla, 
who in turn admitted knowledge about the 
agreement between the President and him. 
Zsatkovich showed the General Statutes which 
were corrected in the President's handwriting 
and approved. Svehla after reading the 
document promised to present it to the Ministry 
Council with the appointment of the members to 
the Directorium. 

The General Statutes for organizing and 
administering Podkarpatska Rus, contained 
only some parts which were announced to the 
public on November 18th. 
The Actual conditions were: 

1. General Statutes for the public. 

2. Statutes for the Directorium 

3. A list of the appointed members to the 
Directorium, which the Directorium had the 
right to veto. (27) 

The following noon Minister Svehla and the 
President invited Gregory I. Zsatkovich to the 
office and advised him, that the General Statutes 
were approved without any changes, except one 
paragraph concerning the Directorium. 

Gregory I. Zsatkovich arrived in Uihorod, 
where he was installed in office by General 
Heneque, the Military protector. To his surprise 
he discovered that: 

1. In the public statutes the word "soud- 
nictvi" (sudebnictvo) was missing. 

2. The list of the appointed members of the 

27. ZSATKOVICH I. GREGORY Op. cit. p. 19 

194 



Directorium was not transmitted to the Military 
Protector. 

3. There was omitted the paragraph which 
gave the right to veto to the Directorium 
members, a paragraph concerning the ap- 
pointment and discharge of members appointed 
by the Military Protector. 

4. The paragraph concerning the right of the 
Directorium to make the list of the necessary 
expenses of their usual functions, was totally left 
out. 

Gregory I, Zsatkovich sent his protest to 
Prague by letter and telegram. He received a 
reply which stated, that the matter will be 
corrected on October 6th. During the Conference 
Brejcha said: "I receiveda telegram concerning 
the appointment of Directorium members and 
two members were not accepted, namely 
Theophile A. Zsatkovich and Eugene Puza. 
Instead of them Julius Hadzsega and Cyril 
Prokop were nominated. The reason for 
Theophile A. Zsatkovich not being accepted was 
that according to the Czechoslovak Law, two 
brothers cannot be on the same commission. 
Eugene Puza will be renominated. This 
correction will be sent to the Military Protector. 
December 9, 1919 Signed by : 

Tusar Svehla Gregory I. Zsatkovich (28) 

On December 27th, 1919 the appointed 
Territorial, Constitutional, and Administrative 
Committee was to examine the points in 
question. 

A session was held at which Hrusovsky was 
present as a representative of the Slovaks, He 
proclaimed that the lobbyist of the Slovak 
Parliament decided to give Podkarpatska Rus' 
only the territory between the U2 (Ung) and 
Cirocha rivers and a portion of north eastern 
Zemplin county. (29) The Directorium refused 
the proposition ending the session. 

28. ZSATKOVICH I. GREGORY Op. cit. p. 21 

29. ZSATKOVICH I. GREGORY Op. cit. p. 21 

195 



Gregory I. Zsatkovich sent a formal request 
on the basis of the agreement of a session of 
February 10th, 1919 called by the President, at 
which Pallier, an official of the Rusin depart- 
ment, was present. Zsatkovich received a reply 
with Pallier's signature, who not only did not 
accept the Zsatkovich proposition, but did not 
even touch the question of boundaries, 
autonomy, etc., stressing only the ad- 
ministrative part. 

On February 14th Gregory Zsatkovich sent a 
reply to the "Palier Memorandum" requesting, 
that the Czechoslovak Government give a reply 
on the decided project presented January 27th. If 
a reply is not forthcoming by February 17th, it 
will be considered negative. Being that the reply 
was not received, Zsatkovich on February 19th 
presented his resignation. 

The members of the Resignation Directorium 
of March 2, 1920 unanimously accepted it. 
Through a personal contact in an interview with 
President Thomas G. Masaryk there came an 
understanding, that the territorial question will 
be decided between Czechoslovakia and 
Podkarpatska Rus and in matters of autonomy 
the Czechoslovak Government will not bring 
forth decisions which would be contrary to the 
Peace Conference. Then the Gubernatorial 
Office was practically forced on Gregory I. 
Zsatkovich, which he accepted on the recom- 
mendation of prominent Rusins. Governor 
Gregory I. Zsatkovich's first deed was to give out 
a "Manifesto" which was approved by the 
Government. 

The Manifesto was as follows: 

"The final decision of the boundary question 
of Podkarpatska Rus, which was agreed upon by 
the General Statutes, was left to the decision of 
Rusins and Slovaks. This was not successful, and 
on account of this it is left to the Constitutional 
Government: The Parliament of the 
Czechoslovak Republic and the Diet (Sojm) of 
Podkarpatska Rus." (30) 

30. ZSATKOVICH I. GREGORY Op. cit. p. 22 

196 



Gregory I. Zsatkovich re-accepted the 
Gubernatorial Office under condition, that the 
Czechoslovak Government will cooperate with 
him. In return he received only promises and no 
deeds. 

Gregory I. Zsatkovich informed Thomas G. 
Masaryk and others that he re-accepted the 
Gubernatorial Office with the right to conduct 
matters In such a way that Podkarpatska Rus 
gets her autonomy, to which she is honestly 
entitled according to the Treaty of the Peace 
Conference. 

After three months orientation and study 
about the local conditions, Governor Gregory I, 
Zsatkovich journeyed to Prague, presenting his 
personal observations about the conditions in 
Podkarpatska Rus. At the session it was deciced 
the neutral territory Rusin officials also be in- 
cluded. All was promised. In the meantime 
Zsatkovich went on a vacation. During his 
that an election would be held in January, 1921. 

Gregory I. Zsatkovich's. request was that 
during the census taken by the Slovak Officials in 
vacation, he was notified by a special 
messenger, about the census taking in the 
questionable territory: SpiS, SariS, Zemplen, Ui 
(Ung) counties and that 2upan Slavik had sent 
out a circular in which the following is stated: 
"In Slovakia there are no Rusin males or 
females; we consider all this not a Rusin, but 
Hungarian agitation, etc." 

Besides the circular this high official gave out 
secret instructions and orders to county officials 
as follows: 
No. 1S51 - 1921 
TO ALL OFFICIALS OF ZEMPLIN COUNTY 

Concerning the current rumors, that part of 
Zemplin county will be attached to Podkar- 
patska Rus, which aroused the anger of the 
majority of Slovak inhabitants, I hereby quote an 
extract from the full power Ministry of Slovakia : 
January 21, 1921, No. 127-1921 Administrative 
Office, to verify the fact, that the Peace Treaty 

197 



has firmly and definitively determined the 
boundaries between Slovakia and Podkarpatska 
Rus. Beside we took over certain villages 
belonging to us, which were between Slovakia 
and Podkarpatska Rus. 

I am wishing to inform the inhabitants of your 
district with a note that the information is totally 
fabricated and not true. (31) 

Dr. Slavik 
2upan 

Gregory I. Zsatkovich found it difficult to 
believe this secret circular and cut short his 
vacation to attend to matters personally. Being 
in Zemplin county for four days, he was con- 
vinced that the circular was spread throughout 
the whole county to county officials. Con- 
sequently Gregory I. Zsatkovich informed the 
President and the President Minister of Slovakia 
as follows: 

"The Circular of Zupan Slavik of Zemplin 
county states that declaring someone to be a 
Rusin is Hungarian propaganda, caused a terror 
among the officials, which I witnessed traveling 
through Zemplin county. In the name of the 
Rusins, Zsatkovich protested and explained that 
the census of Slavik will not be accepted, nor 
being legal, for the Rusins in Zemplin county. In 
this matter we request that such moves be 
stopped to safeguard the Constitution of the 
Slovanic element in Czechoslovakia. 

Signed: Dr. Gregory I. Zsatkovich 
Governor 

Zsatkovich seeing that he could no longer 
believe the sincerity and good will of the 
Government, sent his resignation to the 
President of Czechoslovakia. 

On April 12th Zsatkovich conferred with 
President Masaryk and consequently insisted on 
his resignation, . which was accepted by the 
President on May 13, 1921. 

31. ZSATKOVICH I. GREGORY. Op. cit. p. 24. 

198 



This is a sad history, which had to be told by 
Gregory I. Zsatkovich in his report 
"OTKRYTIE," how Podkarpatska Rus was 

dismembered. 

The present facts about the denationalization 
in the questionable territory showed that the 
Rusins instead of respect, understanding and 
good will received betrayal, not being 
represented on the census committee. 

Gregory I. Zsatkovich wrote his 
"OTKRYTIE" to tell the world about the great 
injustice done to them by their Slovanic 
brothers, the Czechoslovaks. 

The following conditions and agreements 
were placed in the Peace Conference Treaty as 
follows: (32) 

CHAPTER II. 
Paragraph No. 10 

"The Czechoslovak Government promises to 
grant to the territory of the Rusins lying south of 
the Carpathians, between the frontiers Fixed by 
the Allied and Associated Powers, such organs of 
self government within the Czechoslovak State 
and shall afford the utmost Autonomy com- 
patible with the due maintenance of the 
Czechoslovak State". 

Paragraph 11 

"The territory of the Rusins lying south of the 
Carpathians, shall have an Autonomous 
Provincial Assembly Diet. This Diet shall 
exercise legislative power in regard to language, 
public instructions, education and religious 
affairs, as well as in administration and in all 
other matters which the laws of the 
Czechoslovak State place within its sphere of 
activity. The Governor of the Rusin territory 
shall be nominated by the President of the 
Czechoslovak Republic and he shall be 
responsible to the Rusin Diet (Sojm)." 
Paragraph No. 12 

"Czechoslovakia obligates herself, that the 

32. ZSATKOVICH I. GREGORY. Op. cit. p. 25 

199 



officials of the Rusin territory should as far as 
possible De cnosen from among the inhabitants 
of the territory." 

Paragraph No. 13 

"CZECHOSLOVAKIA guarantees the Rusin 
territory its representation in the Czechoslovak 
Republic Parliament, to which representatives 
will be sent. These representatives will have no 
right to vote on questions which are given to the 
Rusin Diet". 

Governor Gregory I. Zsatkovich had also the 
following requests: (33) 

1. Abandon Martial Law. 

2. Election laws for the election of the First 
Podkarpatsky Diet <Sojm), with a guarantee of 
Rusin membership. 

3. Election to the Diet of Podkarpatska Rus 
as soon as possible. 

4. Nominate a Rusin for a Governor with full 
power in autonomous matters. 

5. The present boundaries are only tem- 
porary. 

6. To correct the injustice done to the Rusins 
by the census takers of February 12, 13, 1921, in 
the questionable territory. Investigation com- 
mittees of both parties Czechoslovak and Rusins 
to be present. 

7. Omit from the Czechoslovak Constitution 
all parts which did not interpret the spirit and 
meaning of the St. Germain Peace Treaty. Place 
in the Constitution paragraphs 10, ll, 12, 13, of St. 
Germain Treaty "IPSIUS VERBIS" and declare 
that these paragraphs can be changed ONLY BY 
the approval of the Podkarpatska Rus Diet 
(Sojm). 

8. Accept my project for the Constitution of 
Podkarpatska Rus. 

9. At once confiscate the SCHONBORN and 
all large estates of Podkarpatska Rus and bring 
to life a land reform. Decide how much land may 
one own. 

33. ZSATKOVICH I. GREGORY. Op. cit. p. 26 

200 



10. Restitute the loss of the Rusins made by 
the exchange of the Austro-Hungarian money to 
Czechoslovak valuta. 

11. It is the obligation of the Czechoslovak 
Republic Government to announce, that the 
nomination of officials of Podkarpatska Rus will 
not take place until the Diet of Podkarpatska Rus 

is instituted. (34) 

The Kusms treely united with their Slovanic 
brothers the Czechs, Slovaks, as a respectable, 
loyal populus of the Republic, awaiting justice 
from the Republic. 

The consequence of the Rusin dis-unity is that 
they were mistreated and betrayed by the 
Slovanic brothers, the Czechoslovaks, who 
practically took away from Podkarpatska Rus 
about half of the Rusin territory in all. Finally it 
gave the last stab to the Rusins, by trading the 
Rusin territory left in Podkarpatska Rus to 
Stalin for the Tschesin territory in Silezia, which 
was inhabited by Czechs. A former territory of 
Czechia was taken from the Poles in 1945. 

Thomas G. Masaryk, President of 
Czechoslovakia, said: "A nation that deprives 
freedom from a nation, will destroy itself." 

MEMORANDUM 

Memorandum of the Rusin Council of 
National Defense to the League of Nations and 
Governments of Allied and Associated Powers as 
signatories of the Peace Treaties of St. Ger- 
maine en Laye. 

By the President of the Rusin Council. 

When the World War drew toward its end, it 
was from this part of America that President 
Wilson enunciated the well known 14 points 
claiming new democratic settlements for all the 
people of Europe. 

We Carpatho-Rlisins living in America 
welcomed enthusiastically President Wilson's 
declarations made on February 11, 1917 and 

34. ZSATKOVICH I. GREGORY. Op. cit. p. 29 

201 



according to which "national aspirations must 
be respected ; people may now be dominated and 
governed only by their own consent. Self- 
determination is not a mere phrase. It is an 
imperative principle of action, which Statesmen 
will-henceforth ignoreat their peril". William E. 
Rappard: Minorities and the League. In- 
ternational Concilia don, Sept. 1926, No. 22, P. 
330. 

Regarding especially Austria-Hungary we 
were filled with joy by the President's statement 
that the peopes of Austria-Hungary whose place 
among the Nations has to be assured, should be 
accorded the freest opportunity of autonomous 
development. 

Owing to the example thus given by the United 
States, the principle of national self deter- 
mination was equally accepted by the other 
Allied and Associated Powers and by the in- 
terested small nations as well. Some of these 
later, relying on their own strength, chose to be 
independent, while others sought to join kin 
races. 

The Carpatho-Rusins of America - num- 
bering 500,000 souls ~ endeavoring to secure for 
their brethren living South of the Carpathians, 
national freedom declared as the principal aim 
of European politics, took the obvious course of 
entering into negotiations with the distinguished 
representative of the Czecho-Slovak Republic, 
Thomas G. Masaryk. As a result of these 
negotiations the conditions of the union were 
established, (1918) providing that the Rusins 
(Ruthene) Territory, south of the Carpathians, 
and the Rusin Ruthene Nation, living on it, be 
accorded the widest Self-Government, in order 
to be able to consolidate their liberty according 
to their own conception and to use it for the 
purpose of pursuing the development of their 
economic and cultural resources. The Carpatho- 
Rusins of America have been induced to take 
these steps by their implicit faith in the Slav 
solidarity of the Czech Nation - being 

202 



represented by Thomas Masaryk - by the 
democratic principles to all appearances sin- 
cerely professed by them, and by the sympathies 
documented by the Czechs towards the Rusin 
Ruthene Nation, both before and during the war. 
The action taken by the Carpatho-Rusins of 
America towards a federative union with the 
Czecho-Slovak Republic was finally endorsed by 
the National Councils of Ruthenia. 

The federative union thus created was ac- 
corded international recognition by the Treaty 
concluded between the United States of America, 
the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan, on 
the one hand, and Czecho-Slovakia, on the other 
hand, at St, Germaine en Laye, on September 10, 
1919, the preamble of which expressly states that 
"the peoples of Bohemia, of Moravia, and of part 
of Silesia, as well as the peoples of Slovakia, 
have decided of their own free will to unite, and 
have, in fact, united in a permanent union for the 
purpose of forming a single sovereign in- 
dependent State under the title of the Czecho- 
slovak Republic, "and that the Rusin Ruthene 
peoples to the South of the Carpathian have 
adhered to this union." 

This Treaty ~ in Articles 10 to 12 of Chapter II - 
means to assure the free development of 
national life to the Rusins, Ruthenians, living 
south of the Carpathians, and that is why it 
provides for the widest self-government with the 
establishment of a National Diet vested with full 
legislative powers in all linguistic, scholastic and 
religious matters, in all matters of local ad- 
ministration, and furthermore, in other 
questions which would come under the scope of a 
free national administration, within the frame of 
the Confederation of Czecho-Slovakia. 

Nearly ten years have elapsed since, but 
notwithstanding the right of National Autonomy 
established by the Treaty jrf St. Germaine and 
other solemn promises, the Czech rulers did not 
allow to this day our Carpatho Rusin people to 
exercise their rights of self-government. 

203 



Moreover, the Rusin people are being deprived 
by the Czechs even of the possibility of 
developing those national cultural resources the 
free exercise of which had been guaranteed to 
whichever National Minority by the Peace 
Treaties. 

The Rusins living in America are now con- 
vinced that neither the legislative circles of 
Czechoslovakia nor its Government are likely to 
show any just inclination towards attending to 
the most imperious needs of the population of 
Carpa tho-Ru thenia ; nor is it to be expected that 
they should prove their readiness to appreciate 
the ardent longing of our people to enjoy the 
liberties assured to them by the verdict of the 
Allies. 

Experiencing this faithless refusal to comply 
with obligations solemnly undertaken more than 
eight years ago, and burdened with the enor- 
mous responsibility of having promoted the 
federative adherence of their native land and its 
people to the Republic of Czecho-Slovakia, ob- 
serving of Czecho-Slovakia that the numerous 
appeals and Memoranda, addressed by the 
various organizations of the American Rusins, 
Ruthenes to the subsequent Government of 
Czecho-Slovakia, have not been accorded even 
the slightest attention; the whole body of the 
Carpa tho- Rusin people of America consider it 
their moral duty to launch the strongest protest 
by way of their National Rusin Ruthenian 
Councils - a political organ consisting of 
representatives of the people, elected on 
parliamentary lines, and of the delegates of all 
other national organizations against the utter 
and contemptuous disregard of the rights of the 
Carpatho-Rusin people by the Governments and 
ruling circles of Czecho-Slovakia. 

At the same time, the American National 
Council of Rusins (Ruthenes) representing all 
Carpatho-Ruthenians of America , together with 
the Central Rusin Council of the Ruthenes of the 
mother country, appeal to the whole world, to all 

204 



civilized nations, but above all to the Govern- 
ments and States under the auspices of which the 
Treaty of St. Germaine .was. created and to .the 
League of Nations under, the .guaranty of which it 
has been placed; imploring. them to bring their 
mighty influence to bear upon Czecho-Slovakia 
in order to secure the carrying out of the rights 
accorded to the Ruthenes (Rusins) living south 
of the Carpathians, in Chapter II of the said 
Treaty. 

The Minority Treaty of St. Germaine has been 
placed under the guaranty of the Principal Allied 
and Associated Powers, i.e., The United States of 
America, the British Empire, France, Italy and 
Japan, -- according to the general rules of In- 
ternational Law relating to- international 
treaties. Apart from this, it is provided by Ar- 
ticle 14 that some stipulations of the Treaty ~ 
amongst them those relating to the Autonomous 
Rusin (Ruthene) Territory -- shall be placed 
under the protection and guaranty of the League 
of Nations as well. "It had for a long time been 
the established procedure of the public law of 
Europe that when a new State was created or 
when an existing State absorbed any con- 
siderable amount of territory, for the formal 
recognition of the situation by the Great Powers 
to be accompanied by a request on the part of 
these Powers to the Government thus 
recognized that it should undertake to apply 
certain -definite principles of Government, in the 
form of tian agreement possessing an in- 
ternational character. The new minorities 
treaties, however, differ in form from previous 
conventions relating to similar questions. This 
change of form is a necessary consequence and 
an essential part of the new system of In- 
ternational relations inaugurated by the 
establishment of the League of Nations. For^ 
merly the guarantee for provisions of this nature 
was vested in the Great Powers. Experience has 
shown that this arrangement was ineffective in 
practice, and it was also open to the criticism 

205 



that it might give to the Powers, either in- 
dividually or in combination a right to interfere 
in the internal constitution of the states affected, 
which could be used for purely political pur- 
poses. Under the new system the guarantee is 
entrusted to the League of Nations. Fur- 
thermore, a clause has been inserted in all the 
Treaties, by virtue of which disputes which may 
arise in connection with the guarantees in 
question may be submitted to the Court of In- 
ternational Justice. In this way differences 
which may arise are removed from a political to 
a judicial sphere - a fact which should facilitate 
an impartial decision." - Helmer Rosting, 
Protection of Minorities by the League of 
Nation? - The American Journal of In- 
ternational Law, Vol. XVII, No. 4. October 1923. 
P. 647. 

We believe and hope that the League of 
Nations will not fall back on views professed by 
politicians of the XVIII Century, having been 
thus expounded by King Frederick the Great: 
"All guarantees of our time are like pieces 
filigrane art - destined rather to satisfy the eyes 
than to be of any utility." Histoire de Mon 
Temps, T.I. chaiptre 9. 
I. 
TERRITORIAL GRIEVANCES 
Historical sources; Russian, Polish, German, 
even Czech historians prove that the original 
settlements of the Carpatho-Rusins by far ex- 
ceeded towards the West the regions at present 
inhabited by them. Serious sources prove also 
the fact, that the Vag River, crossing the 
Western part of Slovakia of today, formed the 
Eastern boundary of the Slovakian Principality 
of yore. The whole region lying beyond the Vag 
was Rusin- Ruthenian territory under the rules 
of the Rosti-slaviczes. 

We shall not annoy the reader of this 
Memorandum by dwelling at length upon these 
historical data. We even acknowledge the 
practical necessity of taking account of the 

206 



historic processes having in the course of cen- 
turies considerably changed the territorial 
distribution of the national forces. This attitude 
is indeed a "conditio sine qua non" of discussing 
political problems. But we may hardly fail in this 
respect and certainly do not sin against the rules 
of historical realism when referring to the 
ethnographical map elaborated by M, 
Tomasovsky in accordance with the returns of 
the Hungarian census of the year 1900 and 
published by the University of St. Petersburg - 
as it then was. It is on the authority of this map 
that the Carpatho-Rusin people claim parts of 
the former counties of SpiS, Szepes, Saris, 
Zemplen and Ung - U2 - being situated West of 
the present Slovako-Rusin line of demarcation. 
Regarding this territory line of demarcation 
between Slovakia and Carpatho-Ruthenia, the 
following statement is to be found in Chapter II. 
of the "Statutes General regulating the 
Organization and Administration of Carpatho- 
Ruthenia Rusinia", elaborated, though Dot of- 
ficially promulgated by the Czechoslovak 
Government in 1919: "The Territorial Com- 
mittee of the Paris Peace Conference have 
delimited the frontier as follows: a) The line of 
demarcation separating Slovaks and Rusins- 
Ruthenes-pFoceeds immediately from the town 
Csopto the northern part of the town of Uzhorod, 
leaving the railway in Slovakia and the town in 
Ruthenia; further from this point it follows the 
course of the river Uz up to the Carpathians; the 
whole territory East <of this line is to be con- 
sidered autonomous Rusinia Ruthene territory". 
Dr. Frant Weyr Soustava Cechoslovenskebo 
Prava Statniho v Praze, 1924, 2nd edition, p. 314. 
It is however, apparent from the following 
passage of the said Statutes that not even the 
Government of Czecho-Slovakia considers this 
line as the definite Western frontier of Rusinia- 
Ruthenia. "Seeing that part of the Ruthene 
Rusin people constitute a Minority on the 
Slovakian Territory as established by the Peace 

207 



Conference, the Czecho-Slovak Government 
proposed to the Representatives of both Nations 
to agree upon the uniting of the territory con- 
tinuously inhabited by Rusins Ruthenes with the 
Autonomous Territory of Rusinia-Ruthenia." 

The Memorandum of the Central National 
Council of Uzhorod issued on February 9th, 
1927, contains the following statement con- 
cerning the line of demarcation between Slovaks 
and Rusins-Ruthenes: "The frontiers of Car- 
patho-Rusinia are not definitely established, 
seeing that not only the territory having been 
expressly designed as Rusin-Ruthenian by the 
Slovako-Rusin-Ruthenian Committee of Right in 
the first days of October, 1919 has not been an- 
nexed to Carpatho-Rusinia, but in 1922 in con- 
nection with the creation of the Grand County of 
Kosice, the Government even planned to cut off 
from the Autonomous Rusinia-Ruthene 
Territory a group of villages situated East of the 
Slovako-Ruthenian line of demarcation. 
Moreover, even now subsists the plan to sever 

UJhorod, the capital of Carpatho- Rusinia- 
Ruthene from this territory." 

Two most important inferences may be drawn 
from the statements quoted above, both pointing 
at the conclusion that the delimitation of the 
Rusinia-Ruthene territory towards Slovakia was 
by no means definite, but merely the tracing of a 
temporary line of demarcation. One of these 
proofs is given by the Statutes General for 
Rusinia-Ruthenia drawn up by the Prague 
(Praha) Government, expressly using the term 
"line of demarcation" and reserving the tran- 
sference of this line to the East for an agreement 
to be concluded between the Representatives of 
the Slovak and Rusin-Ruthene Nation. The other 
proof lies in the fact that the Czecho-Slovak 
Government themselves planned to change the 
course of this line in 1922, moreover - according 
to 2upan Slavic's Circular No. 1851 of 1921 - they 
even decreed arbitrary changes on same. 
In this way even Czecho-Slovak Government 

208 



admits the exclusion of part of the Carpatho- 
Rusin people from the Ruthene Territory. We 
beg to add mat this part is by no means in- 
considerable. Foreign Minister Benes, in his 
Memorandum No. 6, addressed to the Peace 
Conference, puts the number of the Carpatho- 
Rusins at no less than 557,867. On the other, hand, 
Czecho-Slovak census of the year 1921 registered 
372,884 Rusins Ruthenes in Carpatho-Rusinia 
and*85,644 In Slovakia, i.e., altogether 458,528; 
more than 100,000 less than the figure quoted by 
Minister Benes at the Peace Conference. The 
fairness of the methods of the Czecho-Slovak 
census of 1921 appears in a strange light of its 
figures registering the number of the Rusin- 
Ruthene population in Eastern Slovakia are 
confronted wim official pre-war statistics. So for 
instance the Czecho-Slovak census of the year 
1921 puts the number of the Rusins (Ruthenes) 
on the Territory of the former county of SariS- 
Saros ~ at no more than 9,200, while the 
Hungarian census registered no less than 39,000 
on the same territory. The Governmental 
pressure which was exercised in order to in- 
fluence the results of the census is* well 
demonstrated by the quotation from a Circular 
issued by 2upan Slavik and distributed in the 
territory of the former county of Zemne-Zemplen 
- and in the Western parts of the famous country 
of Uz-Ung. 2upan Slavik asserts in this Cir- 
cular in an authoritative manner that "There are 
no Rusin (Ruthene) men or women living in 
Slovakia." Nevertheless, even the subsequent 
official Czecho-Slovak census tendentious as it 
was, could not but contradict M. Slavik 
registering 86,000 Rusins (Ruthenes) on this 
territory. 

At the time of the Peace Conference 
discussing the territorial question and, in con- 
nection with them, the position of the small 
nations, President Wilson outlined the purpose of 
these negotiations in an important speech, on 
May 3lst, 1919, as follows; "We are trying to 

209 



make a peaceful settlement, that is to say, to 

eliminate those elements of disturbance, so far 
as possible, which may interfere with the peace 
of the World and we are trying to make an 
equitable distribution of territories according to 
the race, the ethnographical character of 
territories according to the race, the 
ethnographical character of the people 

inhabiting these territories. "Cfr. H.W.V. 
Temperley. - A History of the Peace Conference 
of Paris. Vol. V.P. 130. 

It was under the influence and in conformity 
with the spirit of this speech that the so-called 
Minority Treaties were drawn up, and amongst 
them the Treaty concluded between the Prin- 
cipal Allied and Associated Powers and 
Czechoslovakia - on September 10th. Is it con- 
ceivable to assume that the Peace Conference 
acting under the influence of and within the 
atmosphere created by the Wilsonian principles, 
should have approved the splitting into two parts 
of the People with the result that 25 per cent of 
them - and precisely the part living nearest to 
the West of Europe - be excluded from 
benefiting by the Rusin - Ruthenian Autonomy 
provided for in Chapter II. of the Minority 
Treaty? Is this compatible with the principle 
proclaimed by President Wilson as that of the 
"equitable distribution of territories"? 

We do not doubt for a moment that the in- 
ternational instance competent to deal with the 
territorial problem left unsettled by the Peace 
Conference. (1) considers it necessary to unite 

(1) The respective parts of Article 10, Chapter 
II, of the Minority Treaty read as follows: 

"Czecho-Slovakia undertakes to constitute the 
Rusin (Ruthene) Territory South of the Car- 
pathian within frontiers delimited by the 
Principle Allied and Associated Powers as an 
autonomous unit within the Czecho-Slovak 
State". 

210 



the whole of the Rusin (Ruthene) people living 
South of the Carpathians, within the same 
political boundaries and that in consequence of 
this the League of Nations will assure self-. 
government to the whole Carpatho-Rusin people. 

The present demarcation line can not be 
accepted as a final boundary drawn according to 
Article 10, since it does not include the Western 
group of the Rusin (Ruthene) people. The Rusin 
Ruthenia of today is in fact such as "autonomous 
unit" which has no autonomy and which does not 
even unite the whole Carpatho-Rusin people. The 
artificial line dividing Slovakia and Rusinia- 
Ruthenia cuts into two parts the territory con- 
tinuously inhabited by Rusins-Ruthenes. 
THE AUTONOMY QUESTION 

According to Article 10 of the Treaty con- 
cluded between the Principal Allied and 
Associated Powers and Czecho-Slovakia at St. 
Germaine en Laye: "Czecho-Slovakia un- 
dertakes to constitute the Rusin-Ruthene 
Territory South of the Carpathians within 
frontiers delimited "by the Principle Allied and 
Associated Powers as an autonomous unit within 
the Czecho-Slovak State, and to accord to it the 
fullest degree of Self-government compatible 
with the unity of the Czecho-Slovak State". 
Article II. stipulates that the "Rusin-Ruthene 
Territory South of the Carpathians shall possess 
a special Diet. This diet shall have powers of 
legislation in all linguistic, scholastic and 
religious questions, in matters of local ad- 
ministration and in ether questions which the 
laws of the Czecho-Slovak State may assign to it. 
Ths Governor of the Rusin Ruthene Territory 
shall be appointed by the President of the 
Czecho-Slovak Republic and shall be responsible 
to the Rusin Ruthene Diet." 

These stipulations date from 1919. Let us see 
what has been achieved in this respect by 
Gzecho-Slovakia during the past period of nearly 
a decade. 

211 



The corresponding parts of the law of Con- 
stitution of Czecho-Sloyakia seem to be con- 
formed to the text of the Minority Treaty. 
However, it would be a most superficial reader 
who would accept this as a final conclusion. A 
more conscientious student would easily observe 
that the Constitutional Charter itself submits the 
provisions of the Treaty to very substantial 
restrictions. 

1. The President of the Republic may refuse 
the signing and prevent thereby the coming into 
force of laws enacted by the Rusin-Ruthenian 
Diet, which, by the way, exists these nine years 
only in writ. The Constitution in no way restricts 
this veto of the President. Therefore in case the 
President of the Republic should not wish it, not 
a single of the laws enacted by the Rusin- 
Ruthene Diet may come into force. 

No doubt, the President of the Republic holds 
a pretty strong legal position against the 
Parliament of Prague, too, still he would be 
unable to hinder the activities of the Prague 
Legislative Assembly to such a degree and has 
not the power to render them illusory as is the 
case with regard to the Rusin-Ruthenian Diet. 
This latter, we cannot sufficiently emphasize it, 
exists to this day on paper only. (2) Regarding 
laws enacted by the Parliament of Prague, the 
President of the Republic may but exercise a 
limited suspensive veto. According to the Con- 
stitution, the President is empowered to send 
back to the Parliament within a month the bills 
put before him in order to be signed, together 

(2) The Statutes General regarding Rusinia- 
Ruthenia - No. 2G336, 1919, - provide that the 
"election of the members of the Rusin-Ruthenian 
Diet will not take place later than 90 days after 
the election into the General National Assembly 
of the Czechoslovak Republic." Chapter IV, 6. 
This term of 3 months has expired long ago; nay, 
nearly 3 times 3 years, yet the Ruthenian Diet 
has not been summoned. 

212 



with his remark : however, if the rejected bills be 
passed once more by the majority, the members 
in both houses, then the Act thus passed has to 
take its place in the Statute Book. Cfr. Weyr, 
Soustava pp. 453 and 458. This provision of the 
Constitution does not apply ■ to the Rusin- 
Ruthenian Diet. Deputies elected from among 
the Rusin-Ruthene People might only then 
become in reality the legislators of this Diet if 
and when the President of the Republic, i.e., the 
Government of Prague legally responsible for 
his action, permitted it. 

2. Another important deviation which equally 
means the serious infringement of the rights of 
self-government warranted in Article II. of the 
Minority Treaty, consists in the circumstances 
that while, according to the mentioned Treaty, 
the Governor of Rusinia-Ruthenia is only 
responsible to the Rusin-Ruthenian Diet, ac- 
cording to the sixth line of Par. 3. of the Con- 
stitution he is also responsible to the Parliament 
of Prague. (Weyr. Soustava P. 445). Practically 
and, in fact this means at present when the 
convocation of the Rusin-Ruthenian Diet is being 
delayed "ad Graecas Calendas" by the Prague 
Government - that the Governor of Rusinia- 
Ruthenia may be made responsible at present 
only by the Parliament of Prague, that is, by a 
legislative assembly in which representatives of 
the Rusin-Ruthenian people form an in- 
significant minority. 

The Constitution has strictly incorporated the 
provisions of the Minority Treaty (Article 10) 
according to which Rusinia-Ruthenia ought to be 
constituted as an autonomous unit possible 
within the Czecho-Slovak State and accorded the 
"fullest degree of self-government,". Now let us 
see how this "fullest degree of self-government" 
has been conceived by the Czech legislators. 
The Governmental Decree issued on April 26, 



213 



1920, (3) placed at the head of Rusinia-Ruthenia 
a Governor and Vice-Governor. However, the 
latter was placed above the former. It is true 
that according to the above quoted degree the 
Governor possesses the right to suspend such 
dispositions of the Vice-Governor which, in his 
eyes, are against the Constitution or against the 
Law, or prejudice the interest of Carpatho- 
Ruthenia Rusinia and to ask for the decision of 
the Prague Central Government (Par. 2, sixth 
line). 

At the same time this very Vice-Governor, 
whom even the decree supposes capable of 
giving orders such as might prejudice the in- 
terests of the territory he is called upon to 
govern, this very Vice-Governor, who is the chief 
confidant of the Prague Government, has to 
countersign every single official act of the 
Governor and in case of a difference of opinion 
arising between them, the disputed point has to 
be put up for a final decision to the Prague 
Government, (Par. 3) 

The Vice-Governor is the direct head of the 
Rusin Ruthenian civil administration. It is he 
who conducts the election of the ten elected 
members of the Governing Council, while the 
electors are official subordinates of the Vice- 
Governor - the heads of the parishes. (Par. 5) 

Above the ten "elected" members the 
Governing Council consists of six appointed 
members: The Governor and the Vice-Governor 
(appointed by the President of the Republic upon 
the presentation of the Prague Government) who 
are ex-officio members of the Governing 
Council, and four other members appointed by 
the Prague Government. The Prague Govern- 
ment possesses the right wherever to break up 
the Rusin Ruthenian Governing Council, or to 

(3) Zbirka Zakonu s narizeni Statu 
Ceskoslovenskeho. (Collection of the Statutes 
and Decrees of the Czecho-Slovak State) No. 356, 

1920). 

214 



deprive single members - even elected ones - of 
their membership if they "neglected their 
duties". (Par. 16). 

In the Governing Council, for transacting 
business the presence of five (5) elected and of 
four (4) appointed members is required, - the 
Governor and the Vice-Governor included. In 
case of this number not being reached, the sitting 
resumed after eight, days may pass valid 
resolutions, even attended by less than nine (9) 
members. 

The political and financial rapporteurs at- 
tached to the civil administration, further three 
more rapporteurs designated by the Vice- 
Governor from case to case (Par. 10) are bound 

to assist at the Governing Council's sittings. 

Summarized : 

GOVERNING COUNCIL 

Appointed Members: 

1. Governor (His presence is required for 
transacting business). 

1. Vice-Governor. 

4. Appointed members, no officials. 

3. Appointed officials. (Rapporteurs.) (Their 
presence is obligatory). 

3. Appointed officials (designated by the 
Vice-Governor from case to case; their presence 
is obligatory. 

12. Elected members: 

10. Elected by the heads of parishes under the 
auspices of the Vice-Governor. 

According to introductory part of the 
decree discussed above, the Charter has been 
issued on the basis of the eighth line of Par. 3. We 
have mentioned the main provisions of Article 3 
of the Constitution - in the above; line eight reads 
as follows: "Special provisions regulate detail 
questions, more especially those regarding 
electoral franchises and eligibility for the Rusin 
Carpatho Ruthenian Diet." (Weyr. Soustava, P. 
445). 

It is obvious that this so called Governing 
Council could hardly be considered an adequate 

215 



organ of the Rusin Ruthenian Autonomy; 
nevertheless, not even this shadow of a real 
governing body has been convoked since 1922, 
the governance of the country being entirely 
entrusted to irresponsible Czech bureaucrats 
appointed by the Prague Government. 

The Act of Parliament of July 14, 1927, 
regarding the formation of the administration, 
even formally suppresses the separate status of 
Rusinia Ruthenia. This act completely unifies 
the administrative organization of the whole of 
Czechoslovakia ; however, by no means in the 
form of constituting wide autonomies (as 
warranted to Rusinia Ruthenia by international 
Treaty), but endowing the provinces with a very 
modest degree of administrative local govern- 
ment which in many respects stands even behind 
the Hungarian county-system of old. 

The Statue No. 125, 1927, divides the territory 
of Czecho-Slovakia into four administrative 
provinces, one of them being denominated 
"Ruthenia" (the autonomous territory of Car- 
patho-Rusinia) Par. 2. 

A provincial office is to be created for each 
province, the administrative sphere and the 
capital of which may be changed by an ordinary 
Act of Parliament. (4) 

That the activities of this Provincial Office 
are being restricted by a spirit of centralization 
gravitating towards Prague, is amply verified 
by the fact that matters having belonged hitherto 
under Ruthenia's administration may be 
transferred by way of a Governmental decree to 
some "other" department: The Law itself 
transfers into the sphere of action of the different 
Ministries of Prague part of the powers which on 
the basis of the Governmental Decree No. 113, of 
June 7, 1923 hitherto belonged by rights under the 
Rusin Ruthenian administration. (Ad- 
ministrative Reform Act of 1927, Par. 5. line 3.) 
However logically and according to the principle 
of self-government and federative decen- 
tralization, it ought to be placed within the 
competence of the Provincial Office and the 

216 



sphere of action of the local offices connected 
with same, respectively. 

We feel we must recall here a remarkably 
wise statement of President Masaryk -- which 
we believe might even more justly be applied to 
conditions prevailing in his own country, -- ac- 
cording to which "America gives us a political 
lesson also by the fact of both Republic and 
Democracy being built on federative lines. It is 
just the opposite of European Centralism which 
did not stand the test anywhere. The Swiss 
Republic equally points towards Autonomism 
and a federative character. But American 
federation and autonomy must defend them- 
selves against centralism, rapidly gaining 
ground at the costs of self government," 

(4). To justly appreciate these explanations 
one must be acquainted with the "rigidity of the 
Czecho-Slovak Constitution (to use a term of 
Bryce's) making a difference between the 
constitutional Act and ordinary Acts of 
Parliament. To modify the former three fifths of 
the majority of both Houses of Parliament is 
necessary (Par. 33) No such qualified majority 
is required to change an ordinary act of 
Parliament. The Administrative Reform Act of 
1927 does not say that the territorial com- 
petences of the Rusin Ruthenian Provincial 
Office may only be modified by a Constitutional 
Act of Parliament, inspite of the 9th line of Par. 3 
of the Constitution leading to this conclusion, or 
otherwise the absurdity would arise that the 
territory belonging to the administrative sphere 
of the Rusin Ruthenian Provincial Office might 
be different from the "Autonomous" Rusin 
Ruthene Territory. A certain anxiety seems to be 
justified in this respect, seeing that the spheres 
of the Rusin Ruthenian administration have been 
modified according to our information, by 
government decree, i.e., not even by Act of 
Parliament, and against the wishes of the Rusin 
Ruthene people. 

217 



Conditions in Czechoslovakia, and in any 
case conditions in Ruthenia Rusinla, are in sad 
contrast with this ideal. 

The Rusin Ruthenian people - far from en- 
joying the autonomy guaranteed by In- 
ternational Law - have to look helplessly at the 
centralizing endeavors of the Prague Govern- 
ment. Left entirely to themselves they very 
nearly break down under an avalanche of 
Governmental decrees which are against the 
Constitution and International Law, and the final 
aim of which is the denationalization of the Rusin 
Ruthene people. 

That wliich Prague has pleased to label 
"Autonomy" and which is being exhibited to 
foreign eyes, is but a magic rod, hiding the ac- 
"tual state of things. Positively it is not the 
legislative autonomy which has been promised 
to the Rusin (Ruthene) people on the basis of 
Article II of the Minority Treaty of Saint Ger- 
maine; nothing of this legislative autonomy for 
Rusinia (Ruthenia) has been realized as yet. 

Regarding the legislative autonomy in Article 
II df the Minority Treaty, Czecho-Slovakia has 
assumed up to this day the standpoint of the most 
complete negation. 

The Rusin (Ruthenian) Diet has not been 
summoned to this day; but neither has the Rusin 
(Ruthene) Territory been accorded the widest 
administrative self-government mentioned in 
Article 10. Nay, not even a very narrow one!! 
Maybe some steps have been made in that 
direction but what was given with one hand was 
taken away with the other. The Administrative 
Reform Act of 1927, mentioned above, may serve 
as an example. This Act called into life besides 
the above' described Provincial Office, another 
territorial organizatioh - the "Provincial 
Council of Representatives". This body 
possesses indeed some likeness of the attribution 
of autonomy inasmuch as two-thirds of its 
members, (Par. 13) - in Carpatho-Rus' 12 out of 
18 have to be elected; one-third of the members 

218 



is appointed by the Government. In this way the 
Provincial Council of Carpatho-Rus* will include 
six appointed members. 

Still the disposition regarding the sphere of 
action of this Provincial Council allows but very 
narrow limits for its activity as compared to the 
autdhomy warranted in Article 10 of the Treaty 
of Saint Germaine. In this respect the 
dispositions of the Administrative Reform Act of 
1927 can by no means be considered the 
realization of the autonomous rights guaranteed 
by the just mentioned Article of the Minority 
Treaty. 

The fourth part of the Administrative Reform 

Act No 125 of 1927 regulates the sphere of action 

of the Provincial Council in three connections. 

1. ECONOMIC AND ADMINISTRATIVE 

COMPETENCES 

(Par. 30) 
"The Provincial Council of Representatives is 
called upon to attend to administrative and 
economic matters of the population. More 
especially it has to, attend to humanitarian, 
hygienic and economic interests of the country 
and its people, to public welfare, com- 
munications and cultural needs, insofar as there 
be questions of such matters, which in con- 
sequences of their importance exceed the 
competence of particular parishes or districts, 
being connected with the interests of the greater 
part of the country while possessing no universal 
importance. With this purpose in view, the 
Provincial Council may expressly decide the 
establishment or the subsidizing of such in- 
stitutions, enterprises or organizations which 
are apt to uplift the population materially, 
morally or culturally to better the country's 
communications, housing and hygienic con- 
ditions, or to furnish the cultural and econimic 
needs of the inhabitants. The introduction of 
propositions regarding political matters is 
prohibited; neither are resolutions allowed to be 
brought regarding such propositions." 

219 



We can see from the text quoted above that 
the economic and administrative sphere of 
action of the Provincial Council is outlined 
rather dimly. We feel somehow that from the 
standpoint of the Prague Government merely 
the economic activity of this body is of some 
importance. Presumably -- hitherto experiences 
entitle us to suppose so - the Prague Govern- 
ment will strictly see to its being carried out in 
the form to lay as heavy taxes as ever possible 
upon the shoulders of the Rusin Ruthenian 
people. So, for instance, the Act r^cogni^s the 
right of the Provincial Council to establish or 
subsidize such institutions which are apt to 
promote the education of the people. Yet the Act 
does not say a word about the sphere of action of 
the Council regarding matters of cultural policy, 
i.e., the right to regulate and control the work of 
education. We see no security whatever in this 
Act assuring that the Carpatho- Rusin Provincial 
Council - should it come into existence -- will 
have to bear the material burden of cultural and 
educational institutions serving the interests of 
the development of the Rusin Ruthene tongue 
and of Rusin 's ( Ruthenian 's) own culture, and 
not become the legally recognized financial 
milking cow of the Prague cultural policy, ever 
and anon pursuing the course of Czechization. 

2. COMPETENCE CONCERNING THE 
CREATION OF LOCAL STATUTES 

According to Par. 56 of the Administrative 
Reform Act No. 125 of 1927, ','the Provincial 
Council may, within the limits of the laws of the 
Czechoslovak Republic, establish more detailed 
statutes to be valid on their own territory, in- 
sofar as they are empowered to do so by the 
Central Government". Further items of this 
paragraph make it evident that the Act mainly 
aims at statutes concerning the administration 
of property. However, it is not in this we see the 
essence of this paragraph, but in the rather 
unusual restriction of a centralistic character 
with which his new act makes the right of 

220 



creating Local Statutes dependent on the con- 
ditions of the Provincial Councils having been 
empowered to do so by the Prague Central 
Government. 

We feel no inclination to eulogize the 
Hungarian regime of old, but we feel we owe it 
the truth to state that the County Administration 
Act of pre-war Hungary accorded a much wider 
sphere of action to the municipal bodies of the 
counties than the Czecho-Slovak Reform Act of 
1927 to the Provinces, even regarding the Rusin 
(Ruthene) territory having been guaranteed the 
widest self-government by International Law. To 
prove the correctness of our statement, we beg to 
give here the exact wording of the hereto relative 
part of Par. 11 of the Hungarian County Act, -No. 
21 of the year 1886. "The County Corporation 
may create statutes within the limits of their 
autonomous sphere of action. These statutes 
may not be in opposition to the law and of 
Government decrees actually in force ; they may 
not encroach upon the autonomous rights of the 
parishes safeguarded by the Law." In this way 
while Hungarian Administrative Law merely 
wishes to enforce the principle of administrative 
hierarchy in strictly marking out the com- 
petences of the various local authorities, so that 
the power of issuing Local Statutes is established 
by Acts of Parliament. The Czecho-Slovak Ad- 
ministrative reform Act makes the exercise of 
this power dependent upon the previous consent 
of the Central Government. 

3. The Reform Act of 1927 mentions moreover 
as a separate sphere of action of the Provincial 
Council the cooperation in administrative 
jurisdiction, with regard to the decision of 
questions of Public Law. However, regarding 
this item, the Act does not go beyond the laconial 
remark saying that "this will be established in a 
separate Act." 

In conclusion, the Act, Par. 59, makes mention 
of the "competence to advise" of the Provincial 
Council. In connection with this the Act says that 

221 



the Provincial Council is the advisory organ of 
the Provincial President and of the central 
authorities, with regard to all questions relating 
to the provincial administration; and submits 
advisory opinions in these matters on the request 
of the said authorities." Indeed this is a new 
form of self-government which we might call the 
autonomy of giving advice." 

We equally cannot pass by the provision 
contained in paragraph 61 of the Act, em- 
powering the Prague Government "to break up 
the Provincial Council whenever it deems fit to 
do so. In all cases, the Home Ministry of Prague 
provides for all needs of the local ad- 
ministration." It is true that the Act orders the 
writs for the new elections to be issued at the 
latest within two months' time, however, it does 
not contain any provisions whatever as to the 
period of time the elections have to take place. 
Evidently in this case there can be question only 
of an omission in the construction of the Act. We 
should be pleased to hope that the Prague 
Government will refrain from augmenting this 
defect by committing other political blunders of 
a centralistic tendency. Hitherto experiences 
certainly justify fears in this respect. 

In summarizing what we have said regarding 
the question of self-government we may 
establish that Czecho-Slovakia to this day has 
failed to fulfill the obligations undertaken in 
Articles 10 and 11 of the Minority Treaty with 
regard to the Rusin (Ruthene) Territory South of 
the Carpathians. To our opinion the cir- 
cumstances that the non-fulfillment of the 
obligations contained in this international treaty 
is partly due to neglect, does not alter the fact of 
an international treaty's having been infringed. 
We wish to emphasize that Czecho-Slovakia's 
attitude in the question of (Ruthenian) Rusin 
Self-Government can but partly be attributed to 
neglect. In the above we have put forth several 
concrete proofs demonstrating that positive 
measures taken and laws enacted by the 

222 



Government of Czechoslovakia and by the 
Prague Parliament infringe upon Articles 10 and 
11 of the Minority Treaty. 

Delaying the conscious tactics the realization 
of setf-governrtient and the convocation of the 
autonomous Rusin Ruthenian Diet is one of the 
main pillars of the policy of centralization and 
denationalization pursued by the Prague 
Government. One of the best qualified witnesses 
of this centralistic policy serving the purposes of 
Czech racial hegemony is Dr. Gregory Zatkovich 
who, at present, is once more living in our midst. 
It was he who in 1918 carried on negotiations with 
the actual President of the Republic, Professor 
T. G. Masaryk. The result of these negotiations 
was the memorable resolution in which the 
National Council of the Rusins (Ruthenes) living 
in America declared on November 19th, 1918, 
that the Carpatho-Rusins had decided to join, 
reserving the right of full self-government, in the 
Czecho-Slovak democratic State, on federative 
lines. (5) The parleys having taken place in the 
month of May, 1919, at Uzhorod and in the course 
of which the resolutions of the Rusins (Ruthenes) 
living in America was accepted are also closely 
linked with Dr. Zatkovich's name. Therefore 
nobody could accuse Dr. Zatkovich - later on 
Governor of Rusinia Ruthenia -- to have opposed 
a federative union with Czecho-Slovakia. 

This same Dr. G. Zatkovich was obliged, 
during the time of his Governorship, to fight 
desperately against the Prague Government for 
the recognition of the Rusin (Ruthenian) 
people's rights. This struggle was rendered 
extremely difficult by the fact that - as we have 
pointed out above -- the Governor of Carpatho- 
Rus is in reality a figurehead, as the represen- 
tative of the Rusin (Ruthenian) people 
possessing no powers and that the Vice-Governor 
of Czech nationality who became the real dic- 
tator upon the territory which had adhered to 
Czecho-Slovakia on condition of obtaining the 
widest self government. 

223 



Governor Zatkovich, seeing the hopelessness 
of his struggles, resigned and set forth the 
reasons for the step he had taken in a 
Memorandum presented to the Czecho-SIovak 
Government, 

"I clearly stated before the President of the 
Republic and before the members of the 
Government that on entering my post of 
Governor, I had reserved for myself the right of 
protest in order to make it possible for Carpatho- 
Rus to receive the autonomy which, according to 
the Peace Treaty, is hers by right. After having 
entered my office, I turned all my attention upon 
the elaboration of a scheme which would have 
secured for the Rusin {Ruthene) autonomy the 
respect of the Government and would have been 
equally apt to further the friendly relations 

(5). ft may be of a certain interest to ob- 
serve that the so-called British Crown Colonies 
differ from the Self-Governing Dominions in this 
respect that the representative institutions they 
eventually possess are mainly advisory organs 
of the Colonial Government. Therefore, seen 
from a British point of view, the Status enjoyed 
by the Rusin (Ruthene) Territory would 
correspond rather to that of the Crown Colonies 
than to that of self governing units of the British 
Empire. It might hardly be supposed that this 
could have been the intention of the sponsors of 
the Rusin (Ruthene) Autonomy, when drawing 
up and signing the Treaty of St. Germaine. 

This second declaration of the Rusins 
(Ruthenes) is known as the so-called Scranton 
Resolution. Preceeding this a Resolution had 
been brought on July 23, 1918, at Homestead. The 
Scranton Resolution declares as the condition of 
a union with Czecho-Slovakia that the now partly 
Slovakized but originally purely Rusin Ruthene 
inhabited ^Hungarian counties, Szepes, Saros, 
Zemplen, Abauj, Gomor, Borsod, Ung, Ugocsa, 
Bereg and Maramaros be included into the 
autonomous territory of (Ruthenia) Rusinia. 

224 



between the Husins (Ruthenes) and their Slav 
brethren, the Slovaks and the Czechs. After 
having been at work for three months, I made a 
report of the position of Carpatho-Rus to the 
President of the Republic which report was 
discussed and examined by a conference at 
which all the Ministers assisted under the 
Presidency of Dr. Czerny, then Prime Minister 
and Minister of Home Affairs. At this parley I 
personally urged the election to be held as soon 
as ever possible. I declared at the time -- and 
maintain my statement to this day -- namely, 
that no sort of work of consolidation was possible 
in Rusinia (Ruthenia) as long as it did not 
possess properly elected representatives, as long 
as there was no Diet. At this conference it had 
been unanimously decided to hold the elections 
in the course of the month of January, 1921. 
During my stay at Prague the Prime Minister 
gave me a so-called "private project" which 
contained the outlines of Carpatho-Rus 's 
^autonomous Constitution as conceived by the 
Government. I examined this elaboration in the 
presence of the Prime Minister and immediately 
told him that this scheme as such did not meet 
with my approval. I, on my part, had elaborated 
another scheme regarding the Constitution of 
Carpatho-Rus and handed this over personally 
on October 24th, 1920, to the Premier, as well as 
to the President of the Republic, declaring at the 
same time that two solutions only were possible; 
either the acceptance of my scheme, or the 
putting of the whole matter for final decision 
before Parliament, with the consent of the future 
Carpatho-Rusin Diet. While writing this 
Memorandum (March 16th, 1921) I am expecting 
the fulfillment of the following promises made by 
the Government of the Czech-Slovak Republic. 
The organization of the Governing Council, the 
holding of the elections, the suspension of the 
military dictatorship - promised as early as 
January last year - and a declaration con- 
cerning the acceptance of my scheme regarding 

225 



the constitution of Carpatho-Rus. As one of those 
who are in a great measure responsible for the 
Czechoslovak Rusin (Ruthene) union, I beg to 
be allowed to propose that you should - not only 
in the name of Honour and Justice, but also in the 
interest of the future welfare and stability of the 
Republic - accord to Carpatho-Rus without 
further delay and complete autonomy within 
honest and just limits." 

After Dr. Zatkovich's resignation, the Czech 
Vice-Go ver nor was entrusted with the entire 
administration of the Rusin (Ruthene) 
Territory. The Carpatho-Rusin Central National 
Council of Uzhorod in a Memorandum of 
February 9th, 1927, addressed to the President of 
the Republic, its Ministers, Deputies and 
Senators, explains very thoroughly the in- 
tolerable conditions reigning in Rusinia 
(Rutnenia). This memorandum of our brethren 
living in the old country, in all its facts, covers 
what we have said above with regard to self- 
government. Among others it says: 

"As yet nothing has been done towards the 
realization of self-government. The elections for 
the autonomous Carpatho-Rusin Diet have not 
been ordered to be held, either after the first or 
after the second General Elections, not e^en 
preparatory work having been started for the 
realization of this obligation of the Government. 

After the resignation of the first Governing 
Board, the entire administration was confined to 
the Czech Vice Governor. The Administration of 
Carpatho-Rus is in the hands of the public of- 
ficials who are unacquainted with the local 
conditions and with the mind of our people. Thus 
they often act in opposition to our cultural and 
economic interests The planned Administrative 
Reform Bill (Which since has become a Law, but 
has not yet come into force ~ see its description 
in Chapter II. of this Memorandum) is in con- 
trast with the Treaty of Saint Germaine and with 
the basic principles regarding the Rusin 
(Ruthene) Autonomy, laid down in the fun- 

226 



damental laws of the Republic. This reform has 
been prepared without the collaboration and the 
consent of Carpatho-Rusins' legitimate 
representatives." This is what our Rusin 
(Ruthene) brethren living in the old country say 
of the administrative reform of which we have 
proved in this Memorandum by judicial 
argumentation that it cannot be considered as 
the execution of Article 10 of the Minority Treaty 
of Saint Germaine and that it is uncontestedly in 
direet opposition to Article II of the same Treaty. 

THE QUESTION OF OFFICIALS 

According to Article 12 of the Treaty of Saint 
Germaine, Czechoslovakia agrees that officials 
in the (Ruthene) Rusin Territory will be chosen 
as far as possible from among the inhabitants of 
this Territory. The following remarks contained 
in the above-mentioned Memorandum of 
February 9th, 1927, of the Central National 
Council of Uzhorod demonstrate in how far the 
Czecho-Slovak Government has fulfilled this 
obligation: "In most cases people belonging to 
these parts are not appointed as State Officials. 
In officiating, the Czech language is prevailing 
so to say exclusively - a circumstance calling 
forth general discontent among the population, a 
discontent but increased in consequence of 
economic conditions and unemployment. 

This statement is confirmed by the statistical 
data given hereunder: 

(Ruthene) Rusin Telegraph and Post Service 
employs all in all about 109 officials of Rusin 
(Ruthene) nationality and 354 belonging to other 
nationalities, among them 306 so-called "Czecho- 
slovak*'. Of the latter, according to our in- 
formation, about 50 are Slovaks, the rest being 
Czechs. The position is even worse in the 
financial service; against, all in all, 41 Rusin 
(Ruthene) officials and other employees, there 
are 1279 of another race. Among these again the 
Czechs are leading with a number of 1192 

227 



"Czecho-Slovak" officials of whom - to our 
knowledge, but 10 are Slovaks from the Rusin 
(Ruthene) Territory. In the political ad- 
ministration we find 328 "Czecho-Slovaks" -- of 
these but 5 are Slovaks - and 84 officials of some 
other nationality as against 151 Rusin (Ruthene) 
officials. 

Summarizing the above data, in public ser- 
vice Rusins (Ruthenes) and the Czecho-Slovaks 
are divided as follows; 
Rusins ( Ruthenes) Czecho-Slovaks 

109 306 of these 50 Slovaks 

41 1,192 of these 10 Slovaks 

151 328 of these 5 Slovaks 

301 1,826 of these 65 Slovaks 

In consequence, the Memorandum is justified 
instating that "in officiating the Czech language 
is prevailing, so to say exclusively." Here we 
should remember the statues regarding the 
question of language. 

Article II of the Treaty of St. Germaine says 
referring thereto that the Carpatho-Rusin Diet 
"shall have powers of legislation in all linguistic, 
scholastic and religious questions, in matters of 
local administration..." Still this Diet, after 9 
years, has not yet come into existence, so thai 
the linguistic question closely connected with the 
question of officials and of the administration, is 
being regulated without the consent and against 
the wishes of the Rusin (Ruthene) people. Even 
in case, if the Languages Act No. 122 of February 
29th, 1920, and - even more so - the decree of 
February 3rd, 1926, regulating the carrying out 
of this Act, did not infringe upon the linguistic 
rights of the Rusin (Ruthene) people and even in 
case they were not used for the purposes of 
Czechization, protest ought to be raised against 
the decree, because they regulate questions 
which, according to Article II of the Minority 
Treaty of Saint Germaine have been reserved 
expressly for the competence of the Carpatho- 
Rusin Diet. 

228 



The infringement of the Minority Treaty is 
therefore evident with regard to the linguistic 
question too. 

This Treaty places the scholastic question 
equally under the competence of the Ruthenian 
Diet. However, this latter not having been 
convoked, the autonomous rights of the Rusin 
(Ruthene) people cannot assert themselves in 
this question, these rights not being assured in 
administrative matters of absolute import. 

This renders it possible for Czech-Slovak 
cultural policy to make ever increasing efforts 
tending towards denationalizing the Rusin- 
Ruthenian people not only in Carpatho-Rus, but 
also upon the parts of the Rusin (Ruthene) 
Territory having been attached to Eastern 
Slovakia. 

In the course of year 1926, the increase of 
Czech schools in Rusin (Ruthenian) villages 
became quite remarkable. The "Czech 
Scholastic Matica" was founded for the children 
of Czech families having been established in 
these parts; under the auspices of the Czech 
Scholastic Matica, but with the money extracted 
from Carpatho-Rus. 50 Czech schools have been 
created at the time when many Rusin 
(Ruthenian) villages were in need of a Rusin 
( Ruthene > school. 

Ever since 1925 the Czech press aggressively 
attacks everything that is dear to us Rusins 
(Ruthenes). Offensive sallies against the Rusin ■ 
(Ruthene) clergy, educational staff, officials, 
against our cultural associations, can be 
detected in the columns of the papers which 
enjoy material help from the Government; 
constant humiliation and slandering of our 
nation have created an atmosphere barring the 
way of a reapproachment of the (Ruthenes) 
Rusins to the Czechs. 

Characteristic of the Czech scholastic policy 
pursued on the Territory are following data 
referring to the school year 1925-1926: 

229 



Of schoolmasters teaching in primary schools 
more than half are not R us ins ( Ruthenes ) ; out of 
the total number of 633 schoolmasters in Car- 
patho-Rus 359 are from other parts of Czecho- 
slovakia and from abroad. 

The tendency of Czechization becomes even 
more evident regarding middle class schools 
where out of 138 teachers but 55 are born Rusins 
(Ruthenians) ; out of the remaining 83, 38 coming 
from Bohemia and Moravia. 

All this is due to the fact that the Rusin 
(Ruthenian) people is prevented from exercising 
their legitimate rights of self-government, 
guaranteed by International Treaty. They 
cannot do so in scholastic matters, nor, as to 
that, in any other matters ; they are unable to 
efficaciously defend their cultural and, economic 
interests. The teachers and officials of different 
nationalities do not worry much about the 
educational and economic interests of the Rusin 
(Ruthene) people, being bent upon serving other 
purposes. Those having come from Bohemia to 
Carpatho-Rus, naturally turn all their energies 
upon Czechization and do not trouble about the 
people's interests. 

IV. 
ECONOMIC GRIEVANCES 
The Prague Central Government commits a 
double crime in neglecting Carpatho Rus's 
economic interests. This neglect is aggravated 
by the negative attitude taken up by the 
Government with regard to the realization of 
self-government, because, in this way, it 
deprives the people in order to improve the in- 
tolerable economic conditions. We said the 
Central Government was committing a double 
crime because the events of 1918 were the best 
argument towards inducing Prague to turn an 
increased attention on the economic position of 
the Rusin {Ruthene) people. 

The great majority of the Rusins (Ruthenes) 
living South of the Carpathians occupy them- 
selves with agriculture. In consequence of the 

230 



natural shortcomings of the Rusin (Ruthenian) 
soil, (6) the people, especially in the Northern 
parts, can pursue economic production but to a 
small extent. 

In the winter they earn their living by hewing 
wood in the forests; in summer - before the 
changes following the events of 1918 - they used 
to find agricultural work in the rich plains South 
of the present Hungarian frontiers where during 
the summer they - same as the Slovaks - used to 
earn enough corn to last them all the winter. In 
consequence of the establishment of new fron- 
tiers this possibility has ceased ever since 1918. 

That is why the Czech Government ought to 
have turned an increased attention towards 
procuring new possibilities of a livelihood for the 
Rusin (Ruthene) people, however, nothing of the 
kind was done. Not a single preconceived step 
inspired by a spirit of sound economic policy, 
was taken- in order to assure to the Rusin 
(Ruthene) people the most urgent minimal 
necessities of life. 

Unbiased foreigners visiting Ruthenia are 
dumbfounded at the sight of sheer misery 
prevailing among the population, especially 
within the arid parts of the North. Abroad where 
people are not duly informed, the Czecho-Slovak 

(6) The territory of Carpatho-Rus is -of 
1,265,301 hectars. Of this arable land 220,203 h., 
meadows, 176,579, gardens, 9,439, vineyards 
2,865, pastures 92,142, forests 619,005, marshes 
3,537, territory with buildings on it and other 
unproductive land 41,241 h. 

Consequently but 17.40 per cent of this whole 
territory consists of arable land, The territory is 
divided within the boundaries of Carpatho-Rus of 
today in a manner that the Northern mounta- 
inous parts possess txit 44.328 hectares of 
arable land and this is very poor quality. 
59.78 % of this territory is covered by 
forests , that is, out of 586,969 hectares 
350.921 hectares r.cnsists of woods. 

231 



Government would like to make believe that this 
terrible economic penury is the result of the 
prewar regime, endeavoring in this way to veil 
the carelessness, the so-to-say, sinful in- 
difference they assume in regard to the complete 
economic destituteness, the famine, the misery 
of the Rusin (Ruthene) people which, in con- 
sequence of the union with Czechoslovakia had 
adhered to another economic unit. 

We wish to give here but a short, sketchy 
description of what is called by the Czechs their 
Carpatho-Rusin economic and social policy. 

The transition from the Old currency to the 
new banknotes issued by the Czecho-Slovak State 
was strictly connected with the new orientation 
of economic life. A statement of Dr. Novak, one 
of the finance ministers of Czecho-Slovakia, 
serves as a proof that this transitory stage was 
carried out in Carpatho-Rus completely 
regardless of the interests of the people, in an 
unjust manner, exclusively the interests of the 
Treasury having been in view. According to this 
statement, the Czech State made in Carpatho- 
Rus 315 millions profit by withdrawal of the old 
Austro-HUngarian bank notes. As a result of this 
transitory stage, 60 agricultural cooperative 
societies of Carpatho-Rus became bankrupt. 

The closing of factories, the lack in public 
works, the ever increasing unemployment, the 
slow and unjust way the land reform is being 
carried out, the increase of taxation, the non- 
payment of damages to those who have lost 
millions by having had deposits at banking in- 
stitutes ; the sad fate of the masses of dismissed 
officials and employees, the administration 
conducted without the participation of the 
autonomous municipalities, all this has, once 
for all, completely disillusioned the population as 
to expediency of Czech "economic and social 
policy". And we may well ask which of the items 
have been realized out of the rich economic and 
cultural program with regard to Carpatho Rus 
having been proclaimed by the Government in 

232 



February, 1927? To say the truth: very nearly 
none... The sympathies of the people towards the 
Czechs have vanished; nay, they wish back the 
Hungarian regime of old, when there was no 
famine, when our intelligentsia could enter the 
civil service without any difficulty. 

Under the Czech regime masses of the Rusin 
(Ruthene) intelligentsia had been robbed of their 
daily bread, and in consequence of the weakness. 
of this regime, the rights and the property of the 
Rusin Greek Catholic Church have been in- 
fringed upon, the Rusin (Ruthene) clergy thus 
exposed to privations. The posts in the civil 
service have been filled by Czech individuals 
having come to the country from various parts of 
Bohemia, Moravia, Galicia, and Bosnia, 
regardless of their lack of qualification, being 
accorded, beyond their pay, rich Rusin 
(Ruthenian) indemnities. 

Young boys, students not having absolved 
iheii university terms, have been appointed 
rapporteurs, district officers, etc. 

Official 
Exchanges Registered 

1921 2,304 

1922 4,504 

1923 7,248 

1924 10,934 



Placed 


Percent 


1,322 


57.4 


2,747 


61.0 


4,434 


61.2 


5,795 


53.0 


90 


93.8 


34 


70.8 



Trade Union Exchanges: 

1921 96 

1922 48 
1923 

1924 

25,134 14,422 57.3 

CONCLUSIONS 

Our information given concerning the Rusin 
(Ruthene) Territory South of the Carpathians, 
about its historic, legal, cultural and economic 
conditions may be shortly summarized as 
follows : 

In reality the autonomous Union of the Car- 
patho-Rusins, guaranteed in Article 10 St. 

233 



Germaine Treaty, does not exist. This must be 
asserted because of the following reasons. 

A) A considerable portion of the Car-pa tho- 
Rusin people - more than 25 per cent -- have been 
excluded without their consent and contrary to 
the wishes of the Rusin (Ruthene) nation, from 
the present territory of Ruthenia and have been 
alloted to what is now Slovakia; 

B) Moreover not even the greater part of the 
Rusin (Ruthene) people living East of the 
Slovak-Rusin (Ruthenian) line of demarcation 
are in possession of the rights of legislative and 
administrative self government, assured to them 
by direct agreement with the representatives of 
the Czech nation and by the International Treaty 
of Saint Germaine. The Rusin (Ruthene) people 
are prevented from exercising their autonomous 
powers as well in regard to the linguistic, 
religious, scholastic and other matters of par- 
ticular interests, because the Czecho-Slovak 
Government, recurring to various subterfuges, 
constantly refuses to summon the Diet provided 
for in Article II of the Minority Treaty. 

C). Rusins-Ruthenes are scarcely admitted 
to posts in the civil service. In most branches of 
the Rusin-Ruthenian administration the over- 
whelming majority of the officials is of Czech 
nationality. These bureaucrats, not speaking the 
people's language and being unexperienced as to 
the particular conditions, are merely foreign 
intruders, from the points of view of the in- 
digenous population. And all these Czech of- 
ficials, appointed with the obvious infringement 
of the provisions contained in Article 12 of the 
Saint Germain Treaty, are not prepared and 
perhaps even unable to cope with the lamentable 
conditions of economic life in Carpatho Rus, and 
nothing is done to check the awful progress of 
unemployment and misery. 

Czech authorities have tried, we have seen, to 
flatly deny the existence of Rusins-Ruthenes in 
Slovakia; they have been promptly rebuked by 
their own official statistics, though they suc- 

234 



ceeded in conjuring away thousands, of our 
brethren living in Slovakia. The fact, however, 
that the Rusin-Ruthene people have been divided 
into two parts by the artificial line of demar- 
cation is established beyond the least doubt by 
the Czechoslovak official Census itself. 

It is beyond doubt, too, that the Rusin-Ruthene 
Autonomy assured by International Treaty is 
still existing on paper only, even now, nearly ten 
years after the conclusion of the Treaty of Saint 
Germain. The Rusin-Ruthene people still miss 
that democratic autonomous body of 
representatives apt to serve as a faithful organ 
in realizing their will, in standing up for their 
cultural and economic interests by opposing and 
checking the tendencies of Czech expansion 
experienced now in both connections. 

We are by no means prepared to accept the 
cheap and hollow argument or rather subterfuge 
brought forward on and off by the Czechs for 
their justification, saying that the Rusin- 
Ruthene autonomy cannot be realized owing to 
the cultural backwardness and political im- 
maturity of the Rusin-Ruthene people. How is it 
then that the Czechs discovered this lamentable 
circumstances only after having concluded a 
formal agreement with the representatives of 
the Carpatho-Rusin people?? It was hardly fair 
or reasonable to carry on serious political 
negotiations about un, establishment of a Con- 
federation with such a miserable and retrograde 
people as we are supposed to be and are being 
represented by the Czechs at high international 
instances which surely ought to command more 
respect and are entitled to claim more truth- 
fulness. 

Moreover we do not admit the validity of this 
argument even "in thesis." Being the slogan of 
reactionary political circles, it is an absolute 
contradiction to the democratic principles of 
Self-Determination. The right to autonomous 
national life was never denied by any one with 
regard to completely developed or highly 

235 



progressive nations. President Wilson's doctrine 
is new only in so far as it claims the right of self- 
determination to any people of distinct national 
character and living together in compact 
masses. We true adoptive sons of the great and 
free American Commonwealth strongly 
maintain the equal birthrights of all Christian 
people. If they be equal before God, no human 
being should be allowed to classify them ac- 
cording to some arbitrary standard of so-called 
cultural progressiveness. The Rusin-Ruthene 
people at any rate prefer that their children 
remain "backward" Rusins-Ruthenes rather 
than become "progressive" Czechs. 

Up to this day we always stuck to the principle 
that the Rusin-Ruthene people ought to seek and 
find redress of their wrongs at the hands of the 
Czecho-Slovak Government. However, all such 
appeals having failed for nearly ten years, we 
cannot further passively endure the desperate 
situation of our brethren still living in the mother 
country. We are overwhelmed by the heavy 
burden of an enormous responsibility versus our 
fellow countrymen of Ruthenia, owing to the 
prominent part we took on ourselves in deter- 
mining the destinies of the R'isin-Ruthene people 
living South of the Carpathians. In this may we 
feel it our stringent moral obligation to bring 
their case with perfect frankness before the high 
international instance under the legal guarantee 
of which has been placed the international 
Treaty reserving the rights of Self-Government 
to the Rusin-Ruthene Territory and its people. 

We have tried to trace in our letter addressed 
to the Honorable President of the Council the 
ways and means adequate, in our conviction, to 
re-establish the confidence of the Rusin-Ruthene 
nation, as well as other small nations of the 
world, in the authority and inviolability of In- 
ternational -Law and in the practical value of 
international agreements and guarantees. We 
feel strongly confident that our endeavours will 
not be in vain. 



236 



Michael Yuhasz.Sr. 

President of the R.R.N.O.-R.C.N.D. 
Andrew Dobosh 
Vice President of the R.R.N.O.-R.C.N.D. 
Explanation: 

R.R.N.O. - Rada Rusinov Nacional'noj 
Oborony 

R.C.N.D. - Rusin Council of National Defense. 

THE MOCKING GREEK CATHOLIC SYNOD , 

The mock "GREEK CATHOLIC SYNOD" 
called by the Communist authorities and the 
Orthodox Hierarchy in PreSov, April 28, 1950, 
abrogated the Union with Rome and stated that 
from this time GREEK CATHOLICS in 
Czechoslovakia do not exist, all are Orthodox. 

In May, 1950 the Czechoslovak Government 
approved this decision of the PreSov Synod of the 
(forced) Greek Catholics and assigned all 
Church properties to the Orthodox Church. 

Persecution of the clergy and laity began, 
when they refused to accept the Orthodox 
Church. The accused were sent to Concentration 
Camps and assigned to forced labor. 

Being that the Greek Catholic Church in 
Czechoslovakia was outlawed, Bishop Paul 
Gojdics and Bishop Basil Hopko were arrested. 
In the meantime, a law was issued, forbidding 
the Roman Cathoilic Clergy to administer the 
Sacraments to the Greek Catholic faithful. 

To fill the vacant Greek Catholic Parishes 
accelerated courses were given to young men 
who wished to enter the priesthood. In a short 
time the Orthodox Hierarchy established four 
Eparchies: in Praha, Oloumuc-Brno, PreSov 
and Michalovce. 

The suppression of the Greek Catholic Church 
lasted for eighteen years. During the Alexander 
Dubcek regime the situation changed. 

On March 19, 1968 Bishop Basil Hopko 
petitioned the Government to be freed from his 

237 



confinement. (1) On March 29, 1968 an Open 
Letter petition was printed in the 
"VYCHODOSLOVENSKE NOVINY", which 
stated first the cause of their liquidation ; second, 
asked for a reexamination of the cases of Bishop 
Paul Gojdics and Bishop Basil Hopko; third, 
asked for the freedom other religions have, and, 
fourth, asked that the Greek Catholic Church be 
rehabilitated. (2) 

The Czechoslovak Government in reply 
permitted the representatives of the Greek 
Catholic Church to meet publicly and discuss 
their Church affairs and the question of 
rehabilitation of the Church. 

1 . April 10, 1968 in Kosice 134 clergymen and 
about 60 laymen were present at a meeting. The 
resolutions of the meeting were published in the 
newspaper, and stated that the Greek Catholics 
were illegally suppressed in 1950. 

2. That the "PRESOV SYNOD" of 1950 was 
invalid, because it was called contrary to 
juridical norm. 

Therefore the statement continued: We 
hereby petition the authorities to declare that the 
Greek Catholics are free to profess their religion 
and are not suppressed. That the clergy be 
rehabilitated as soon as possible, and that they 
may organize their flock into religious societies. 

This "ACTION COMMITTEE" consisted of 
three clergymen, namely Fathers John Murin, 
Stephen Ujhelyi and Andrew Zima. Their 
petition also had requested the restitution of ail 
their churches, which were taken over by the 
Orthodox in the 1956's. 

The Czechoslovak Government decided to 
seek a compromise, asking that the people 
decide the question to which church they wish to 
belong: Greek Catholic or to the Orthodox 
Church by voting. 

1. KATOLICKE NOVINY No. 15, p. 4. 1968 

2. VYCHODO SLOVENSKE NOVINY. 
Kosice/March 29, 1968, pp. 1-2 

2^58 



June 13, 1968 the Government issued a decree 
on this matter, recognizing the Greek Catholic 
Church in the State of Czechoslovakia, and 
decreeing that within six months the voting is to 
take place. In the year 1968, 210 parishes voted; 
of these only five parishes received an orthodox 
majority. 

The freedom that is the Alexander Dtibcek 
"LIBERALIZATION" came to an end with his 
fall from power. The new regime was led by 
Gustav Husak, who declared that the Dubcek 
"LIBERALIZATION" system must come to a 
stop, point by point, because it is contrary to the 
Marxist system, and furthermore who or what 
creates difficulty for the Government, must be 
eliminated. 

The next question was the "COMMON 
USAGE" of the Greek Catholic Churches. This 
question was opposed by the Greek Catholic 
faithful, who did not want to have a "COMMON 
USAGE" of churches with the Orthodox. 

The Church Authorities had to be prudent, not 
to hurt the Church and therefore they accepted 
the system of "Common usage". Furthermore 
the Government already decided in favor of 
Orthodoxy and demanded the "Common Usage" 
of Churches. 

A meeting was held in Presov October 7, 1970, 
at which were present K. Homola and his two 
associates from the Office of Ecclesiastical 
Affairs. 

Father John Hirka, the Apostolic Ad- 
ministrator, in his speech of introduction, first of 
all had described what the Czechoslovak 
Government did for the benefit of the Greek 
Catholic Church. In the second part of his speech 
was a request for financial help, because without 
such help the Church hardly could exist. 

K. Homola replied, that the Government had 
no intention of suppressing the Greek Catholic 
Church and in the meantime asked a pledge to 
assist in the normalization of the present 
situation. 

239 



THE PROBLEMS OF THE 
GREEK CATHOLICS 

At the time of freedom the Greek Catholics did 
not have a Bishop, because Bishop Basil Hopko 
was not at that time "rehabilitated". Therefore 
Bishop Basil Hopko temporarily subdelegated 
his authority to the three members of the "Ac- 
tion Committee". 

The Holy See at the same time entrusted the 
administration of the Presov Eparchy to an 
Ordinary ad interim. Father John Hirka was 
chosen to be the Ordinary, a nomination 
publicized April 2, l%9, after the necessary 
consent of the Government. On the same day 
Bishop Basil Hopko was rehabilitated, Fr. John 
Hirka took over the Ordinary's Office April 23, 
1969, and with this act the "Action Committee's 
function ceased to exist. 

The Ordinary was confronted with a clergy 
problem. In 1948 in the Presov Eparchy there 
were 328 priests listed and of these only 163 were 
left who were in their advanced age. 

The second problem was the state of can- 
didates to the priesthood and no permission was 
given by the State to open a Seminary. Therefore 
the candidates were sent to the existing Latin 
Rite Seminaries, to Bratislava and Litomerice. 
In 1968 there were sixteen candidates and in 1970, 
twenty candidates. In 1968-1969 the Government 
approved a complementary course for those who 
did not finish their Theological course in 1950. 
This group consisted of 25 candidates, but at the 
end of 1969 this Complementary Course was no 
longer permitted to continue. 

A youth problem also arose. The young 
generation which attended the Latin Rite 
Churches for 18 years, did not know its own Rite 
and Services. At the time there were no prayer- 
books of the Greek Rite, but the Ordinary 
received permission from the Government to 
publish liturgical books and prayerbooks. 

From then on the Greek Catholic Church in 
Czechoslovakia was progressing, but not without 
hindrance and hardship (1973) and what the 
future has in store for the Greek Catholic 
Church, will be told by the years to come. 

240 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 



BACINSKY, EDMUND. "Podkarpatskaj a 

Rus ,1919-1936". 
BALUGYANSZKY, ANDRAS. "Egyhazi 

Tortenetirat". Eperjes. 1846. 
BAZILOVITS, JOANNICUS. "Brevis 

Notitiae". Cassoviae. 1799. 
BESKID, A. NIKOLAJ DR. "Karpato- 

Russkaja Pravda". Homestead, 

Pa. 1933. 
BLAHOVISTNIK. PreSov. 1949. 
BOLAND, HAL. "Readers Digest". 

August 1970. 
BOYSAK, BASIL. "The Fate of the 

Holy Union". 
BOYSAK, BASIL. "Ecumenism and 

Michael Manuel Ols'avsky". 
"CORPUS JURIS HUNG. DEKRET 

, LADISLAUS" 
DECSI, ANTAL. "A Magyar 

Oroszokrol . " 
DOBNER, L. "Annales". 
DULISKOVlC, JOANN. "Istoriceskij a 

Certy Uh.ro/Russkich7 . Ungvar, 

1875. 
FEJER, GYORGY. "De Avitis 

Magyarorum et Cunorum Sedibus". 
DVORNIK, FRANCIS. "The Slavs in 

European History and 

Civilization". New Brunswick, 

N. J. 1962. 
GREKOV, D. B. "The Culture of 

KievRus". Moscow. 1947. 
HANAK, K. WALTER. "The Sub- 

carpathian Question 1918- 

1945". 
HARTVICUS, L. "Vita St. Stephani". 



241 



HODINKA, ANTAL. "A munkacsi 

Gorog Katblikus Piispokseg 

Tortenete." Budapest, 1909. 
HODINKA, ANTAL. "A munkacsi 

Gorog Katolikus Piispokseg 

Okmanytara. 1911. 
KATQNA, ISTVAN. "Hist. Crit. Reg. 

Hung." v 
KONDRATOVIC, IRENIJ. "Istorija 

Podkarpatskoj Rusy." Uzhorod, 

1930. 
KRAJNyAk, GABOR. "Szent f Istvan 

Veszpremvolgyi Donacioj anak 

Gorog Egyhazi Vonatkozasai ." 
KRAJNYAK, GABOR. "A mariapocsi 

Kegykep Eredete". 1929. 
KUBEK, EMIL. "Ruthenus-Ruthenian" . 
KUPCANKO, HRIHORIJ. "Nasa Rodiria". 

1924. 
LACKO, MICHAEL, S.J. "Unio 

Uzhorodensis Carpaticorum cum 

Eccl. Cath." 1955. 
LACKO, MICHAEL, S.J. "New 

Documents about Michael Manuel 

Olsavsky Bishop of Munkacs . " 

19 59. 
LACKO, MICHAEL, S.J. "The Popes 

and Great Moravia in the Light 

of Roman Documents." 1972. 
LACKO, MICHAEL, S.J. "Forced 

Liquidation of the Union of 

Uzhorod". 1961. 
LECHOCZKY, TIVADAR. "A Bereg megyei 

Gorog Szertartisu Katolikus 

Lelkeszek Tortenete a XlXik 

Szazadig". Munkacs. 1904, 
MESZAROS, KAROLY. "A Magyarorszagi 

Oroszok Tortenete". Budapest. 

1895. 
MUSZTYANOVICS, EMIL. "Szent 

Istvani Gondolatok". 
NILLES. "Symboliae". 

242- 



"PALLAS NAGY LEXIKON". Budapest, 

189b. 
PAVLER,^GYULA. ','A Magyar Nemzet 

Tortenete az Arpadkori Kiralyok 

Allat". 
PEKAR, BASIL. "De Erectione 

Canonica Eparchiae Mukacensis". 
PEKAR, B. ATHANASIUS, OSBM. 

"Maris! Istorii Cerkvi 

Zakarpat j a" . 
PORPHIROG, CONSTANTINUS. "De 

Administratione Imperii". 
PROSVITA. "The Tragic Tale of 

Podkarpatska Rus". 1961. 
PUBLICATION OF THE HUNGARIAN 

FRONTIER READJUSTMENT LEAGUE. 

"MINORITY GREIVENCES IN 

RUSSINSKO". Budapest. 1927. 
PUNKO, ALEXANDER. "Bishop T. 

R o in 7 *? ii 
"SCHEMATISM EPARCHIAE MUNKACSENSIS 

1 899" 
SKINTA, ISTVAN OSBM. "The Shrine 

o£ Our Weeping Mother of 

Mariapocs". Neiy York. 1973. 
SZENTGYORGYI, JORDAN KAROLY . 

"A Szuz Anya Konyei". 
SZIRMAY, L. "Notitia Topographica 

Cottus Zemp." 
TIMQN. "Imag Nov. Reg. Hung." 
TUROCZI. "Hist. Hung." 
VOLOSIN, AUGUSTIN. "Hreko Kat. 

Cerkov vo Podkarpatskoj Rusy". 

1924. 
WENCZELL, C. "Az Arpadkori Uj 

Okmanytar". 
ZSATKOVICS I. IGNATIJ. "Otkrytie" 

ZSATKOVICS, KOLOMAN. "Jagerskoje 
Vlijanije. Borba Frotiv Munkac- 
evskoj Greceskaho Obrjada 
Eparchii . " 

243 



NAME INDEX 



ABAUJ COUNTY. 4,131,142,165,224. 

ACHRUM. 12,39. 

ADALBERT Bishop. 11. 

AKNA SLATINA, Maramaros County, 176, 

ALBANI Cardinal. 81,103,105,106,113, 

ALBANIANS. 172. 

ALEXIUS Bishop. 155. 

A'LMOS . 6 . 

ALSACE LORRAINE. 162,178 

AMPHILOCHY Bishop. 89. 

AMURATH (Turk). 61,63. 

ANTONIUS IV Patriarch. 17,60. 

ANASTASIA Princess. 44. 

ANGELO RAPHAEL Bishop. 94. 

ANDREAS STEPHEN Archsean. 86. 

ARAD. 39. 

A'RDAN PORPHYRIUS. 71,93,94. 

XRDAN HXZA (Village). 1,131. 

A'RPXd. 6,9,15,34,36,45,53. 

ARMANIAN-S. 17 2. 

ASTERISK Archbishop. 9. 

ASSANES King, 52. 

ATTILA. 35. 

AUGUSTINE Primate. 96. 

AUGUSTINIUM University. 148. 

AUSTRIA. 66,67,71,135,137,139,146, 

162,178,179,188,201,202. 
AVARS. 30. 



B. 



BACS. 4a, 4b, 11, 22. 
BACSINSZKY,ANDRAS Bishop, 88, 100, 

108, 112, 112a, 114, 115, 117, 122, 

123,130. 

244 



BALK. 19. 

BALKAN. 16. 

BALATON Lake. 10. 

BALING JANOS. 18,66,67,68,69,71,90, 

, 93. 
BALAZSFALVA. 140,141. 
BALOGH MARIA. 151. 
BANFFY DEZSO Baron. 158. 
BARCZA, Abauj County. 138. 
BARKOCZI JANOS GROF. 140. 
BARONIUS. 9. 
BARTFA, BARDIOV. 145. 
BASILIUS Emperor. 37,38. 
BASIL I. Bishop. 89,131. 
BASIL II Bishop. 89. 
BATHORR'Y GYORGY, Lord. 89. 
BAVARIA. 4, 43. 
BAZILOVITS JOANNICUS. 11,53,58,66, 

68,88,113,141. 
BL;CSE. -59. 
BELA King. 8,30. 
BELA, King's Secretary. 30. 
BELA IV King. 52,53. 
BELEKIN. 36,52. 
BELEKENYES. 49. 
BELGIUM. 162,178. 
BELYUD. 10. 
BENES EDWARD. 175,176,183,194,185, 

186,193,200. 
BENEDICTINE ORDER. 39. 
BESKID MOUNTAINS. 1. 
BEREG COUNTY. 1,4,16,22,174,176, 
190,224.. 

BEREGSZASZ,BEREH0VO. 1. 
BESKID A. NIKOLAJ Dr. 4,6,12,61, 

98,100. 
BESKID ANTHONY. 175. 
BESZTERCZE,. 16. 

BETHLEN GABOR Prince. 51,66,80, 
BIHAR COUNTY. 22. 

245 



BILKE. 16. 

BIZANCZI GYORGY Bishop. 83,96,97, 

}10, 116, 132, 139. 
BLAZSOV, Saros .County. 97. 
BLAZSOVSZKY GYORGY Bishop. 97,98, 

116, 132. 
BLUMENGEN Prime Minister. 100. 
BOBOVISCSE. 58. 
BOCSKAI ISTVAN Prince. 51,59,66, 

89. 
BODROG River. 30. 
BOHEMIA. 203,230,233. 
BOLAND HAL. 24. 
BOSPHORUS. 14. 

BORSOD County. 131,142,174,224. 
BOYSAK BASIL. 68,69,70,100. 
BOZSICS^OVICS BASIL Bishop. 122. 
BOSZORMENY. 59,61. 
BRADACS MIHALY. 123,142. 
BRADACS JANOS Bishop. 88,108,112, 

112a, 113, 114, 115, 122, 99, 100, 

101. 

BRANA SIMEON. 143. 

BRITISH EMPIRE. 203,205,224. 

BREST-LITOVSK. 18. 

BRESTOV, Saros County. 144. 

BUDA. 60,143. 

BUDAPEST. 123,127,149,152,159. 

BULGARIA. 1,2,10,35,52. 

BUKOVINA. 171. 

BULTSU. 8,10,34,42. 

BRANKOVICS GYORGY. 59,60,61. 

BRASCAJKO JULIUS. 189. 

BREJCHA. 192,193,195. 

BRATISLAVA. 155,156,179. 

BRYCE. 217. 



246 



c. 

CALIF of Bagdad. 37. 

CALVIN JOHN. 4,159. 

CARINTHIA. 2. 

CARL III Emperor. 96. 

CARPATHIAN MOUNTAINS. 1,5,22,28, 

30,3 5,136,169,199,20 2,205, 

211,222,230. 
CARPATHO-RUSIN-S. 171,178,202,203, 

204,206,207,209,211,218,220, 

223,224,225,226,227,228,2 29, 

230,231,232,234,235. 
CASSOVIAE, Kassa. 11. 
QASSOVICIUS GABRIEL. 85. 
CERNECA HORA. 58,99. 
CERULARIUS MICHAEL. 46. 
CIROCHA River. 195. 
CISAR JAROSLAV. 188,189,191. 
CHUST. 179,180,189. 
CHARLES III King. 79. 
CHARLEMAGNE. 40. 
CHIRA ALEXANDER MSGR. 128,129, 
CHIOS ISLAND. 94. 
CONSTANCE COUNCIL. 105. 
CONSTANTINOPLE. 2,8,10,14,15,17, 

34,35,37,60. 
CONQUELIN. 106,109,111. 
CORBELLI J. ANDRAS GROF. 137. 
CORVIN JANOS. 62. 
CORVIN MATYAS King. 64,65. 
CREEL GEORGE. 179. 
CROATIA. 20,27,46,140. 
CSAK MATYXS. 51,54. 
CSXKTORNYAI ZSIGMOND. 62. 
CSANAD. 4a, 4b, 11, 12, 39. 
CSEHRE JOZSEF. 138. 
CSEMERNYA. 16. 
CSUTQRTOKHELY. 59. 



247 



CZECH, CZECHIA. 2,164,167,168,169, 
170,187,188,201,202,2 03,204, 
206,213,216,220,223,225,226, 
227,229,231,232,234,235. 

CZECHO-SLOVAKrIA. 202,203,204,221, 
223,228. 

CZECHOSLOVAKIA. 30,84,126,153,165, 
169,170,17 2,173,174,17 5,176, 
180,183,184,185,187,188,190, 
191,192,19 5,196,197,199,200, 
204,205,208,209,210,211,216, 
218,22 2,2 24,2 26,227,232,23 5. 

CZERNY DR. Prime Minister. 225. 

CYRIL AND METHODIUS. 2,3,4,6,7,35, 
38,40,41,43,60,116,136. 

D. 

DALMATIA. 2,46,55. 

DAMINANI ANDRAS. 138. 

DANILOVICS JANOS. 157. 

DANUBE River. 4,6. 

DARDANELLES. 162,179. 

DE ANGELIS. 106. 

DE CAMELIS J. JOSEPH Bishop. 92, 

93, 94, 9 5, 96, 116, 137, 138, -140, 

141. 
DECSI ANTAL. 34,43,63. 
DEBRECZEN. 59,116,141,148,159. 
DIET, SOJM. 196,200,201,211,212, 

215,225,226,228. 
DOBNER.L. 40. 
DOBOSH ANDREW. 23 7. 
DOGE VAJDA. 55. 
DOMINICA. 58. 
DOROG. 59. 61. 100, 143. 
DORY. 102. 
DRAG. 17. 

DRAGOS BOGDAN. 52. 
DRAVA RIVER. 4b. 

248 



DUBCEK ALEXANDER. 156. 
DUCHNOVICS ALEXANDER. 126,144. 
DUDAS MIKLOS,OSBM. Bishop. 19,159, 

160. 
DULISKOVICS JOANN. 8, 10,13,16,60, 

61,125,132,133. 
DUNA River. 4a ,4b, 30. 

E. 

EGER. 4b, 11, 17, 67, 68, 72, 73, 76, 83, 
8 5,86,8 8,92,94,96,98,99,100, 
101,102,104,107,109,112,113, 
116,132,137,139,141,142,144, 
150. 

EGYED. 13,52. 

ENDRE II King. 22,43,44,50. 

ENDRE III King. 53. 

ENGLAND. 19. 

ELIZABETH QUEEN. 59. 

ESRY .MIHALY. 135. 

ECTVOS Baron. 147. 

EPERJES-PRESOV. 2,7,95,122,123, 

140,142,143,144,146,147,148, 
152 

ERDODY PETER Archbishop. 98,132, 
14 2. 

ERDODY ANTAL GROF Bishop. 139. 

ESZTERHAzY.GROF, Bishop. 102,104, 
105,107,108,109,111,112. 

ESZTERGOM. 4a ,4b , 11 , 13 , 18 , 73 , 76 , 
77,86,92,93,94,115,151. 

EUTIMIUS Bishop. 90. 

F. 

FARKAS LAJOS. 152. 

FEJER GYORGY. 6,36,. 

FELSO vXLY,G6mor County. 148. 



24-9 



FENYESSY Bishop. 137. 

FERDINAND I. 65,89. 

FERDINAND^ I. 67. 

FERDINAND III. 70,85. 

FERDINAND IV. 145. 

FILIPOVICS ALEXIUS. 87. 

FINN-UGOR. 6. 

FIRCZAK JULIUS, Bishop. 7, 112a, 126. 

FLORENCE COUNCIL. 17,63. 

FREDERICK THE GREAT. 206. 

FRANC JOSEPH I. 19, 142,145,147. 

FRANCE. 19,178,203,205. 

FRENCH. 162. 

FOGARAS. 96,98,113. 

G. 

GABRIEL, Bishop. 89. 

GAGAN FAMILY. 145. 

GAGANEC JOSEPH Bishop. 145,146,147. 

GALICIA. 6,49,53,5 6,63,93,96,129, 

145,171,175,233. 
GARDOS G. JOHN. 17 5. 
GEBE PETER, Bishop. 84, 127. 
GENNADY GYORGY, Bishop. 96. 
GENLITIS, Cardinal. 54. 
GENOCZY ANTAL. 11. 
GERMANY. 1,2,12,19,33,53,163,179, 

206. 
GEORGE de HOMONNA .GROF. 85, 
GEZA. 9,10,13,11,34,35,36,4 2,44,46 
GIZELLA. 4,11,12,43. 
GOJDIC PAUL, OSBM, Bishop. 11,152, 

153,154,155,156. 
GNEZEN. 8. 
GOODWIN. 167. 

GOMOR COUNTY. 22,131,165,174,224.. 
GOROG SZERTARTASU KATOLIKUS. 1. 
GREEK. 94,172. 
GREEK CHURCH. 77. 



250 



GREEKS, GREECE. 28,41. 

GREEK RITE. 4,5,6,8,9,11,13,14,16, 
24,25,32,34,35,40,41,42,43,44, 
45,47,48,49,51,52,54,55,56,57, 
60,61,62,63,65,67,70,71,72,73, 
84,86,90,91,104,111,112,113, 
116,117,119,121,126,135,136, 
139,148,149,150,152,157,158. 

GREEK RITE CATHOLIC. 4,7,12,15,16, 

19,36,63,79,80,101,110,115,120, 
127,129,134,137,141,147,148, 
151, 1J2, 153, 155, 159. 

GREGORIAN CALENDAR. IF!. 

GREGORY. Bishop, of Syracuse. 37. 

GREGOROVICS JANOS Bishop II. 66,90. 

GYULA. 8,10,34,35,42,51. 

GYULAFEJERVA'R. 65. 

GYOR. 4b, 11. 

H. 

HADZSEGA ELIAS. 180. 

HAJDU COUNTY. 142. 

HADJU DOROG. 19,102,125,147,156,157, 

1,59. 
HAM JANOS Bishop. 117. 
HANCHIN MICHAEL. 165. 

HANAK K. WALTER 165,167,168,173,175. 
HANYKOVSZKY ANNA. 143. 
HARTVICUS. 43. 
HATHEGY. 1. 
HAVASELVI. 17. 
HEFELE J.K. 65. 
HELMER, 206. 

HENNOQUE GENERAL. 190,194. 
HERNATJ River. 182,185. 
HENRY II. 11. 
HERODOTUS. 30. 
HEVES County. 116. 
HIEROTHEUS. 8. 

251 



HILARY, BISHOP. 65. 

HOMESTEAD, PA. 4,191. 

HIRKA, JAN. 156. 

HODERMARSZKY MICHAEL. 79,80,82,83, 
95,96 97. 

HODINKa'aNTAl! 62,68,69,70,71,73, 
74,76,78,79,80,81,83,84,87, 
88,91,97,101,102,103,105,10.6, 
107,108,110,111,131,133,136, 
137,141. 

HOLY SEE. 82,84. 

HOMONNA. 83,87. 

HOPKO BASIL, Bishop. 153,156. 

HORANYI ELEK. 9. 

HORBATY, HORVATY. 1. 

HOROGSZEGI SZILAGYI ERZSEBET. 61. 

HOSTOVICKY GREGORY, 86. 

HORVATH ISTVAN. 55,56,58. 

HRAySKE, Saros County. 156. 

HRUSOVSKY. 195. 

HUDL'OVO, Ung County. 126. 

HUNDERT MARK, Szepes County. 95. 

HUNGARY, HUNGARIANS. 1,4,5,8,9,10, 
16,18,20,21,2 2,23,24,2 5,2 7,29, 
30,31,33,34,36,3 9,40,42,43,44, 
46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,56, 
58,60,61,63,66,67,71,72,7 7,78, 
81,84,86,88,89,93,101,103,111, 
112,114,117,123,126,131,136, 
144,14 7,148,149,156,157,158, 
163,165,166,167,168,174,17 5, 
178,179,180,183,188,197,198, 
201,206,207,216,221,224,231. 

HUNS. 30. , 

HUNYADI JANOS. 61. 

HUST. 127,180,188. 

HOUSE, Colonel. 176. 



252 



IGNATIUS Patriarch. 37. 

I L LAVA, LEOPOLDOVO. 153. 

INDIA. 30. 

IMRE King. 14,15,44,48,50. 

ITALY. 172,178,203,205. 

IV^NOVICS DANIEL. 87. 

IVANYI. 62. 

IS2LOCZKI KATARINA. 101. 

IZABELLA. 65. 

J. 

JAKOB, Bishop,. 61. 

JAKUSICS GYORGY Bishop. 7 2,73,85. 

JAPAN. 203,205. 

JA'SSY. 90. 

JA'SZBERENYI TAMAS S.J. 86. 

JASZO. 67. 

JERUSALEM. 172. 

JANOS,Bishop. 65,88. 

JAN Polish King. 93. 

JOSEPH I. Emp. 95. 

JUSKO JANOS, Bishop. 70. 

JUSZKO SOPHRONIUS. 71. 

JULIAN CALENDAR. 151. 

JUGOSLAVIA. 172. 

K. 

KACSURA. 22. 

KALOCSA. 4a, 9, 11, 49, 61. 

kALLO. 59,70,139. 

KXLMAN King. 13,22,46,49,50. 

KALNIK, Bereg County. 127. 

KARA-ALDUT. ,10. 

KAROLYI MIHALY ( GROF. 168. 

KAR ALDUT. 10. 

KAROLYI MICHAEL GROF. 168. 

253 



KARPATO RUSSKAJA PRAVDA. 4. 
K/ROLYLF. 99,140,160,161. 
KXROLY,King. 53,54,56. 
KARACSIN, v Ugocs County. 127. 
KASSA, KOSICE. 90,122,138,139,142, 

144,208. 
KAZIMIR King. 56,59. 
KATONA ISTVXN. 12,14,45,47,49,51, 

52,55,56,57. 
KERESZTUR. 22,152. 
KIRALYTELEK, Szabolcs County. 66. 
KISDI BENEDICT, Bishop. 86. 
KISFALU, Abauj County. 139. 
KIEV. 129. 

KIS BEREZNA. 97,132. 
KLEIN JANOS, Bishop. 98. 
KOCZEL. ,33. 

KLOKOCSO, Zemplen County. 136,137. 
KOLBAS, Zemplen County, 144. 
KOL0NICS LEOPOLD, Archbishop. 93,94, 

95. 
KOLPEN. 59. 

KOMJAT, Ugocsa County. 123. 
KONDRATOVIC IRENIJ. 125. 
KORIATOVICS FEDOR. 16,56,57,58,59, 

62,80,103. 
KORNICKY. 72. 
KOSTELNIK GABRIEL. 129. 
KORTVELYES-HRUSOV. 16,17,60, 
KOVESLIGET KAMENICA. 16,142. 
KOROS, KRIZEVAC. 122,140,142,152. 
KOROS, River. 141. 
KOVAR, 55. 

KOSSETH.LAJOS. 51,14 5. 
KOVXCS MELETIUS Bishop. 100. 
KOVXCS JANOS. 144. 
KOVALICKY ANNA. 145. 
KRAMARZ KARL. 175. 
KRAJNYAK GABOR, Dr. 14,15,16,137,138 



254 



KRASZNA. 16,39. 

KRASSOV County. 55. 

KAUNITZ. 107,108,111,112. 

KRUCSAY. 13 7. 

KUBEK EMIL. 28. 

KULCENSKY,PORPHITIUS Bishop. 92,93. 

KUN LASZLO. 57. 

KUPA. 42. 

KUPCANKO HRIHORIJ. 1,30. 

KUTASSY, Primate. 131. 

KUTKA JANOS. 123. 



L. 



LABORCZ. 30. 

LACKO MICHAEL S.J. 99. 

LAJOS.I King. 22. 

LADOMERSZKY ALEXIUS. 86. 

LADISLAV. 11. 

LAMBRUSCHINE.Card. 111. 

LAMPE FREDERIK. 34. 

LAUREAK. 1. 

LATIN RITE. 4,5,6,12,13,17,18,34, 
43,45,46,48,49,56,57,60,63, 
109,110,111,115,116,117,138, 
150. 

LATVIA. 18. 

LAUKA. 58,129. 

LXSZLO Bishop. ,65. 

LASZLO, ULASZLO. 45,46,62. 

LXSZLQ II, Bishop. 65,66,88. 

LASZLO II, King. 61. 

LASZLO LV,King. ,148. 

LAZAROVICS ISTVAN. 59. 

LEOPOLD Emp. 138. 

LEOPOLD I, King. 78,79,93,94,95,96, 

LEOPOLD II, King. 115. 

LEO. 38. 

LEAGUE OF NATIONS. 20 5,206. 



25? 



LECHOCKY TIVADAR. 1. 

LEMBERG, LVOV. 18,96,97,98,123. 
LEVICKX Metropolitan. 123. 
LICHNIC. 144. 
LIPNICKY J. JANOS. 93. 
LIPPAY,Archbishop. 18,67,69,73, 74, 

76, 77,, 78,, 86, 92, 109. 
LIPJANI,HETHARS, Saros County. 182. 
LITHUANIA. ,56,172. 
LOCSE,LEVOCA. 145. 
LORINCYZ GYORGY. 139. 
LUBLO. 182. 
LUBKOVICS MARIA. 145. 
LUKACS NOTARAS. 64. 
LUKA'CS. 62. 

LORANTFY ZSUZSANNA. 70. 
LUTHER MARTIN. 4. 
LVOV SYNOD. 12 9. 

M. 

MAD. 139. 

MAKKO. 150. 

MAKOVIGA. 168. 

MALA RUS. 28. 

MANKOVICS GYORGY, BLAZSOVSZKY. 97. 

MARIAPOCS. 98,99,100,133,134,136, 

137,138,139,159,160. 
MARGARET, Princess. 56. 
MART INI US JANOS. 66. 
MARIA TEREZIA, Queen. 7,34,101,102, 

103,104,105,106,108,111,112, 

113,114,122,132,141. 
MARY , Queen. 59. 
MASARYK G. THOMAS. 163,165,166,172, 

173,174,179,181,183,187,190, 

192,194,196,197,198,201,20 2, 
,203,217,223. 
MATY AS FERENCZ. 139. 
MATYAS , PRINCE. 66,89. 

256 



MATYAS King. 62,63. 

MAXIMILLIAN. 65. 

McKEESPGRT, PA. 164. 

MECHLIS, General. 128. 

MEDVECKY ANTONIA. 148. 

MESZAROS kXrOLY. 22,30,31,32,33,35 
36,37,41,43,44,47,48,49,50,51, 
54,55,57,58,59,62,63,64,65,66, 

67,68,70,71,73,88,90,92,94,97, 
, ,115,117,121,146. ' 

MESZAROS MATYAS. 136. 
MICHAEL .Emperor. 33,35,37, 
MICHAEL III, Emperor. 37. 
MIHALY JOSEPH. 68. 
MICHALOVCE,NAGY MIHALY. 12 8. 
MIKLOSSY ISTVAN, Bishop. 19,159 
MIKSA King. 89. 
MILLERAND M. 170. 
MISLE, Abauj County. 144. , 
MISKOLCZ. 126,160. 
MOLDAVIA. 5 7,64,90,92. 
MOLNAR JANOS. 136. 
MOLNAR SIMON. 136. 
MOJMIR,KING. 2. 
MONTENEGRO. 162,178. 
MONTE CASSINO. 13. 

MORAVIA. 2,33,35,40,56,203,230,233. 

MORISE. 4a, 4b, 12, 39. 

MOSCOW. 55,152,153. 

MOSCQW PATRIARCHATE. 154,155,129. 

MUKACEVO, MUNKACS. 1,152. 

MULTYANSZKY KOSZTA. 58,92. 

MUNKACS EPARCHY. 17,34,60,88,91,92 

93,94,99,101,102,103,105,106, 

107,109,112,113,123,127,130, 

131,139,140,141,142,143,158. 
MRZLIM POLE. 152. 

MUSZTYANOVICS EMIL. 10. 



257 



N. 

NAGY BOCSK,OV,Maramaros County. 127. 
NAGY KALLO, Szatmar County. 18,96,126, 

159. 
NAGY LAJOS King. 16,43,55,56,57,59, 

63. , 
NAGY RAKOCZ, Ugocsl County . 96. 
NAGYSZOMBAT,TRNAVA. .74,96,97,98,109, 

122,123,133,145. 
NAGY VARAD. 7,11,48,141,143,148,157. 
NYXRADI DIONISIUS, Bishop. 152. 
NXNXS. 59. 
NAPLES. 61. 
NICHOLAS Bishop. 58. 
NILLES, S.J. 87. 
NYITRA. 4,a,4b,ll,16,47. 
NYIREGYHAZA. 138,159. 
NOGRAD. 16. 
NOVAK D. 232. 
NOVAK ISTVAN^DR. Bishop. 151,152. 

0. 

OLD SLOVANIC. 41,44,47,143,147,148, 

151,157,158. 
OLSAVICA,Szepes County. 97. 
OLSAVSZKY JANOS. 143. 
OLSAVSZKY EMMANUEL MICHAEL, Bishop . 

98,99,100,102,103,104,107,110, 

113,114,116,130,131,132,133,134, 

139. 
OLSAVSZKY S. SIMON, Bishop. 97,98. 
OSEKA. CHECHIA. 156. 
OTKRYTIE 199.. 
OTTOMAN EMPIRE. 162,178. 
d-VINCELL6,Szabo3cs County. 148. 
OZMAN Turk. 63. 



258 



p. 

PACHAMIUS. 17. 

PALLAS NAGY LEXIKON. 7,11,33,34. 

PALEOLOGOS Emperor. 63. 

PALFY MORIC, Grof. 151, 

PALLIER. 196. 

PANKOVICS ISTVAN, Bishop. 112a, 123, 

147,148. 
PANNONHEGYI MONASTERY. 13. 
PANNONIA. 1,2, 4a, 5, 6, 7, 8, 33, 34, 3 5, 40, 

41. 
PAPP ANTAL.Bishop. 112a, 126 , 160 . 
PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE. 207,210. 
PARIS. 167, 175,180,188. 
PARTHEN PETER Bishop. 19,71,72,73,74, 

7 5,76,7 7,78,82,85,86,87,88,90, 

91,92,95,100,115. 
PASIKA. 143. 
PASZTELYI JANOS Bishop. 112a, 126 , 142 , 

149. 
PATAVA. 6. 
PAVLER GYULA. 11. 
PECS. 4a, 4b, 11, 13. 
PEKAR BASIL. 92. 

PEKAR B. ATHANASIUS OSBM. 92,98. 
PELEGROM. 175. 
PEST. 146. 

PETE, Szatmar County. 149. 
PETERFY. 54. 
PETO. 51,55. 
PETRONIUS Bishop. 66. 
PETROV, General. 128. 
PEREMYSL. 18. 
PETTES ANDRAS, 138. 
PHILADELPHIA, PA. 165,172. 
PHOTIUS Patriarch, 36. 
PILGRIM. 6,35. 
PISECKY. 165,174. 
PODOLIA. 16,58,121. 



259 



PODKARPATSKA RUS ' . 30,73,127,152,171, 
17 2,174,176,179,180,184,185,186, 
187,188,190,191,192,193,194,195, 
196,197,198,200,201. 

POPRADREMETE. 182. 

POCSI ALEXIUS. 142,123. 

POCS. 97,98,133,134,13 5,137,138,139, 

POLAND. 18,49,51,53,54,56,57,59,63, 
68,72,114,117,119,121,162,172, 
179,206. 

POPE ALEXANDER VII. 87. 

POPE ALEXANDER VIII. 94. 

POPE BENEDICT. 35. 

POPE BENEDICT VI I . 6 . 

POPE BENEDICT XIV. 111. 

POPE CLEMENT XIV. 7,34,101,108,111, 
112, 112a, 114, 116b, 122. 

POPE GREGORY XI. 17. 

POPE GREGORY IX. 52. 

POPE INNOCENT III. 13,48,49,50. 

POPE INNOCENT X. 73,75,79,86,87,91. 

POPE JOHN III. 40. 

POPE JOHN VIII. 6,38. 

POPE LEO X. 111. 

POPE NICHOLAS. 37. 

POPE NICHOLAS V. 63. 

POPE PIUS. IV. 110,111. 

POPE PIUS VII. 143. 

POPE PIUS X. 19. 

POPE PIUS XI. 112a. 

POPE SYLVESTER. II. 9,11. 

POPOVICS ALEXIUS, Bishop. 112a, 146. 

POPOVICS BASIL /Bishop. 112a, 123 , 147 . 

POPRAD. 141. 

POZSONY. 54,75,81. 

PORPHIROG CONSTANT I NE . 8,10,34. 

PRAESENTINI JACOB. 52. 

PRESOV. 11,152,153,180,189. 

PRESOV SYNOD. 155,156,179. 

PUNYKO ALEXANDER. 128,129,130. 

260 



PRAGUE. 8,11,89,153,155,156,183,186, 
191,19 2,193,19 7,207,212,213, 
214,216,218,220,222,223,23 0. 

PRUSSIA. 162,178. 

PUZA EUGENE. 189,195. 

R. 

RACZ DEMETER. 58,98,99. 

RACZ NANAS. 59. 

RACZ.-SRB. 59. 

RACZ b6sZORMENY. 59. 

RACZ DOROG. 59. 

RAKOCZ, Ugocsa County. 94. 

RAKOCZ, Zemplen County. 159. 

RAKOCZY FERENCZ II. 136. 

RAKOCZY GYORGY. 18,51,66,67,68,70, 
, , 71,93,95. 

RAKOCZ I GYORGY, II. 90,92. 

RAKOCZY ZSIGMOND. 131. 

RAKOVECKY METHODIUS , Bishop. 92,93, 
94. 

RATISLAV. 2,33. 

RAPPARD E. WM. 202. 

RASKA BASIL. 62. 

REGECZ. 59. 

RICHARD. 40. 

ROMAN. 4. 

ROMAN RITE. 101,102,104. 

ROMAN CHURCH. 86. 

ROMAN EMPIRE. 21. 

ROMAN SEE. 46 ,47 , 73 , 79 ,91 , 97 > 

ROME. 8,15,16,18,19,32,40,41,43, 

49,51,52,53,54,5 5,60,64,66,67, 
70,71,72,7 3,75,79,80,84,88, 
103,105,106,109,111,112,114, 
126,129,136,140,149,150,152, 
157,158,159. 

ROMZSA THEODORE Bishop. 127,130. 

ROSOVIC VLADIMIR. 129. 



261 



ROSTING. 206. 

ROSTI SLAVICZEL. 206. 

RUMANIA-ns. 1,16,17,31,51,53,55,56, 
57,60,64,65,90,92,96,139,14 0, 
141,143,157,158,162,172,176, 
178,191. 

RUSZKA KRAINA. 166,174. 

RUS, RUSIN. 1,2,4,5,6,10,16,21,22,24, 
25,26,27,28,29,31,32,33,34,35, 
36,41,42,44,51,53,54,5 5,56,58, 
59,60,61,63,65,66,6 7,68,70,71, 
72,73,90,94,102,103,115,116, 
12 5,126,12 7-139,14 0,141,143, 
146,14 7,149,152,157,163,165, 
166,167,168,169,170,176,180, 
181,183,184,185,187,189,191, 
192,196,19 7,198,200,2 01,20 3, 
2 04,2 05,210,213,216,217,2 20, 
221,222,223,224,225,227,228, 
229,230,231,232,233,254,235, 
236. 

RUSIN STATE. 182,190. 

RUSINIA. 4 a, 186, 190, 191, 2 7, 2 11, 21 2, 
214,216,218,224,225,226. 

RUSZINSZKO. 188. 

RUSSIA. 7 2,117,118,121,160,171,175, 
177,206. 

RUSZKIJ KERESZTUR. 152. 

RUSSKI PEKLANY. 152. 

RUDOLPH KING. 89. 

RUDOLPH II King. 66. 

RUTHENIAN. 28,76,77,78,79,80,82,86, 
87,88,117,118,119,131,141,171- 
229,230,2 31,232,23 3,234,2 3 5,236. 



262 



s. 

SAJOPETRI. 108. 

SALANON, ,46. 

SAMOSUJVAR. 7. 

SARA ALDUT. 10. 

SAROLTA. 10,35. 

SAROS COUNTY. 4,22,122,131,141,142, 

165,174,176,182,185,186,18 7, 

189,190,197,207,209,224. 
SAROSPATAK., 44,136. 
SATORALJA UJHELY. 13 7,145,149,159. 
SILEZIA. 201,203. 
SIMON BISHOP. 13. 
SZENDRO, 61. 

SZENTGYORGYI JORDAN KAROLY. 138. 
SZERDAHELY. 59, 
SZIKSZO. 182. 

SZILAGYI PAPP JOZSEF Bishop. 157, 
SZIRMIA. 52. 
SZIRMAY. 41,57., 

SKINTA J. ISTVAN, OSBM. 137,140. 
SLAVIK. 197,198,209. 
SLIVKA JOHN. 130,156. 
SLOVAK- s. 195,196,197,2 01,20 7,228. 
SLOVAKIA. 73,164,185,197,198,203, 

206,207,209,211,224,225,229, 

234. 

SLOVANIC. 1,2,4,6,10,21,28,31,35, 
36,39,40,41,47,51,52,57,198, 
199,201. 

SLOVENSKO. 73. 

SLOVJANE. 2. 

SZOLNOK. 59,116. 

SOMOGY. County. 42. 

SVJATOPOLK. 33,41. 
SZABO SIMEON. 165,174. 
SZABOLCS County. 4,18,22,89,97,126- 
131,133,134,136. 

263 



SZALANKEMENY. 59. 

SZATMAR, County. 131,142. 

SZATMAR. 16,17,22,89,90,117,122,142, 

, 146. 
SZAVA, River. 4b. 

SCHONBORN. 200 . SCRANTON , PA, 174,224. 
SEBASTINE. 94. 
SERBIA-ns. 20,51,53,57,59,60,61,64, 

140,162,178. 
SERGIUS Bishop. 66,89. 
STEPHEN. 87. 
ST. STEPHEN King. 4,9,11,12,13,32,39, 

42,43,44,78. 
ST. BRUNO. 36. 
ST.GELLERT. 12,39. 

ST. GERMAIN-en-LAYE. 169,184,188,200, 
,203 ,,20 5, 211 ,2 26, 2 2 7, 228, 234, 23 5. 
ST.LASZLO. 43,45,46. 
ST.>IETHODIUS.7. 
SZECHENYI GR0F. 39. 
SZECHENYI'g. 93. 
SZEPES,SPIS County. 4,22,61,116,131, 

142,165,174,176,18 2,18 5,186,18 7, 

190,197,207,224. 
ST. PETERSBURG. 2 07. 
SZEREM, County. 22. 

SOUSTANA WEYR FRANT . 207.213,215. 
SOVIET RUSSIA. 30,1, 
SPALOJ. 190. 
SPOLATE. 94. 
STRENA. 87. 
STRIGONIA. 87. 
STRIPSKY HIADOR. 98. 

STOJKA ALEXANDER,Bishop. 84,127,160. 
STROPKO, Zemplen County. 
SUNM. 39. 
SVAUAVA. 17 5. 

SVEHLA. 187,190,192,193,194. 
SWEDE-s (SVEOE). 28. 



264 



STALIN. 201 
STYRIA. 2. 



T. 



TALLYA. 139. 

TARDIEU. 176. 

TARKOVICS GREGORY Bishop. 122,123-143, 

,144,145,146.' 
TARNOCZ, Ung County. 148. 
TARNOCZY MATYAS Bishop. 86. 
TARASOVICS BASIL Bishop. 18,66,67,68, 

69,70,71,72^73,94,91,93,117. 
TARTAR. 53,116. 

THEOPHILACTUS Patriarch. 8,10. 
THOMAS. 10'. 
TIMON. 45, 6. 
TIULPANOV, Colonel. 128. 
TISZA, River. 1,30,137. 
TISZAVARSANY. 59. 
TOKAY. 30,102,137,138. 
TOMASEVSKY M. 189,207. 
TOPLIC. 141. 

TORISA-TARCZA, River. 182,185,101. 
TORNA, Abauj County. 22. 
TOTH MIKLOS Bishop. 146,147,148. 
TSCHESIN. 201. 
TUHUTUM. 42. 
TURI. 59. 
TURKIA. 10. 
TURKEY. TURKS. 16, 18,59,63,138,140, 

162,178. 
TURKINAK VLADIMIR. 189. 
TUROCZI. 59. 
TRANSYLVANIA. 6,8,10,16,34,35,42,53, 

55,66,68,89,90,113,140,141. 
TRNAVA. 74 95. 
TREFERT AUGUSTINE. 147. 



265 



UBLYA, Zemplen County. 151. 

UGLYA, Mlramaros County. 94. 

UGOCSA, County . 4,16,17,22,94,131,165, 

174,176,190,224. 
UHRO-RUSIN. 1,7,30,114,146,147,148, 

149,150,151,163,164,165,166,171, 

172,173,174,176. 
UKRAINA. 120,167,168,172,175,180. 
UNG, UZ, County. 4, 16,22,55,131,165, 

174,176,186,18 7,190,197,20 7,2 24, 
UNG .River. 6,100,180,185,186,195,207. 
UNGVAR,UZHOR0D. 7 , 19 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 8 5 ,86 , 

91,115,12 2,123,126,12 7,129,130, 

141,143,146,14 7,148,149,151,154, 
,159,165,168. 
UNGVAR UNION. 154,155,159. 
UROLCH. 1. 
U.S.A. 5,12,163,164,171 174,176,191, 

202,203,205. 
UZMAN-s TURKS. 50. 
UZHOROD. 174,179,180,189,190,191, 194, 

207,208,223,226. 

V. 

VACZ. 4b, 11, 86. 

vXG,River. 206. 

VALYI JOZSEF. 148. 

VA'LYI MARTON. 149. 

VALYI JA'NOS, Bishop. 14 8,149,150,151. 

VARANO, Zemplen County. 144. 

VATHA. 51. 

VATICAN COUNCIL II. 48. 

VELEJTE, Zemplen County. 123,126. 

VELEHRAD. 8,11. 

VERES KOLOSTOR, Szepes County. 144. 

VENETINE, Ung County. 12 2. 



266 



VIENNA. 69,99,100,105,108,126,138, 

139,145,146,149,151. 
VISEGRAD., 44. 
VILA'GOSVAR. 59. 
VESZPREM. 4a, 4b, 11, 13, 43, 48. 
VESZPREMVOLGYI. 14. 
VOJK STEPHEN. 10. 
VOLCHYNIA. 121. 
VOLODZKO. 104. 
VORONTSOV. 153,155. 
VOLOSIN AUGUSTINE. 60,180,188. 
VOLOSINOVICS JOSEPH, Bishop. 92,93. 
VYSNA TVAROSC. 14 5. 

W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 174. 
WARSAWA. 61. 
WENCZELL G. 149. 
WISHING, Bishop. 37. 

WOODROW WILSON. 160,171,172,176,177, 
180,201,209,235. 

Y. 

YUHASZ MICHAEL SR. 171,188,237. 

Z. 

ZAGREB. 61,152. 
ZAPOLYA JANOS. 51,65. 
ZEKANY JOANN Bishop. 92. 
ZEMflLEN County. 4,16,22,44,55,57,102, 
12 3,126,131,141,14 2,149,159-165, 
174,176,185,186,187,195,197,198, 
207,209,224. 
ZENTA. 138. 

ZSIGMOND JANOS, Prince. 89. 
ZSIGMOND,King. 59,61. 

267 



ZSATKOVICS I. GREGORY. 164,165,166,168, 
171,172,173,174,175,176,179,181, 
183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190, 
191,192,193,194,195,196,197,198, 
199,200,201,224,226. 

ZSATKOVICS KA'LMXN. 17. 

ZSATKOVICS THEOPHILE. 195. 






' 



«. 



268 



CORRECTIONS I 

P. 415. in the last paragraph: "in the 
mean time the HUMS invaded. "net tie 
HUNS, but KUNS. 

P.] 01. Last paragraph: During 8 con- 
versation in 1911, it should be 177]. 

P. 113. Last paragraph: Coadjutor Bi- 
shop with the right "as" , should bo 
" of *. 

P. 130. 4th paragraph" nishop Elszav^z- 
ky, should be Olsavszky. 

P. 159. 5th paragraph: l,ar^ word " 
montka" , should be monks . 

P. 160. 5th paragraph: line 4 "wre ' 
should be are. 

P. 160. 1st line March 2b, should 
be Hay 14,1939. 

p. 106. 2nd paragrafh;":i '' should bp 
I. 

p.l?7. 3rd paragraph: word left- nut 
vacation . 

p. 197. 4th paragraph; Census taken 
by the Slovak officials. (word: Iff* 
out , Gregory I ■ 7,satkov.ich ' a rtqupr t 
was, that the census be taken by brt.fr 
interested parties. Jt happened that, 
the Slovak officials took up the cen- 
sus themselves, when Zr-atkovich was 
on vacation. He was notified by a spe- 
cial messenger about the census tnki.nc; 
in the questionable territory.